More Religious Nutters

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Blake
The nice thing about Buddhism, is it doesn't step on the toes of science. Science is free to explain the world, buddhism is content to explain the mind and leave the world to science. And happily, science is happy to leave Buddhism the mind. Science rarely goes further than poking around in that gray goopey blob of fat found in skulls.

Science certainly does a lot with the mind! Psychology, nueroscience, linguistics, and anthropology all deal a lot with the mind.

[Blake]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That's a sign of severe depression and general low self-esteem.

Not really. The question of "Why should I deserve happiness" is a philosophical one and thinkers should not shy away from any question.

If someone actually answers that question with a resounding "I don't deserve happiness!", or is in the process of convincing themselves of the truth of that. Then that IS a sign of severe depression.

But the question itself, IS a trap. It has no answer, you can speculate and rationalize endlessly but wont reach a conclusion which is better than nothing. Putting energy into trying to answer it, simply makes you unhappy, results in a troubled mind lacking in peacefulness. Asking the question is a sign of foolishness, persisting in seeking an answer leads to unhappiness, believing you have an answer is delusion.

This IS one of those questions, were it's much wiser to ask not "What do I think" but "What do I really feel"
"Is it good to be happy?"
And that is where the answer is found.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Blake
You are born into the fools game.

You are expected to run through mazes and jump through hoops to get food, navigate more mazes and jump through more hoops to find a mate, (more hoops) breed, raise some little fools (and teach them how to navigate the maze and jump through hoops) and then you die, wondering wtf was the point of what you just did.

'cuz the movers and shakers of the world on thier deathbeds were thinking "gosh, I wish I played more video games".

[Blake]

Originally posted by Perfection
Science certainly does a lot with the mind! Psychology, nueroscience, linguistics, and anthropology all deal a lot with the mind.

Buddhism does not deal with linguistics or anthropology, neuorscience is a science of the body, not mind.

And even psychology only examines the mind by how it interacts with the universe, rather than studying the mind directly.

[Elok]

He used to just jump over the Barrels of Negativity that the Great Ape of Passion rolled down at him over the Crooked Path of Life. But now he has found the Hammer of Enlightenment

[Blake]

Originally posted by Perfection
'cuz the movers and shakers of the world on thier deathbeds were thinking "gosh, I wish I played more video games".

Video games are a distraction, whether you want to move the world or attain the highest happiness, they will distract you from that goal.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Elok
He used to just jump over the Barrels of Negativity that the Great Ape of Passion rolled down at him over the Crooked Path of Life. But now he has found the Hammer of Enlightenment

Damn straight. It's hammer time!

[Perfection]

Ignoring the other stupid stuff for simplicity...

Originally posted by Blake
And even psychology only examines the mind by how it interacts with the universe, rather than studying the mind directly.

So basicly you're agreeing that science tries to explain the mind. This probably does step on the toes of Buddhism here, doesn't it?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Perfection
Ignoring the other stupid stuff for simplicity...

So basicly you're agreeing that science tries to explain the mind. This probably does step on the toes of Buddhism here, doesn't it?

Science tries to explain the mind. Buddhism succeeds.

Science actually can't step on the toes of Buddhism.

This is because, Buddhism explains the mind through direct experience - it is the path for someone to understand their own mind.

Science attempts to explain the mind without direct experience, it attempts to explain it through indirect experience. Science attempts to explain minds - plural. Buddhism explains the mind - your one.

The scientific approach, will never succeed. It can't. The mind isn't like that*. The day a scientist adopts the approach which does succeed, they have basically become a Buddhist. They may not call themselves a Buddhist, but they're quacking like one.

* The basic point is. That all the information on the world could be compiled on what minds look like from the outside. And someone who reads and assimilates all that information, would still be no closer to understanding WHAT the mind actually is, it's like reading all the information on the chemical compounds which form truffles (or some other food), and then believing you know what truffles taste like.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
I think you're looking for the phrase "personality flaw," not "psychological problem." At least, that's the word I would use for something like arrogance.



Well, to me that raises the question of the origin of morals, but if you can duck out of a debate on theology I can duck out on a debate on the origin of morals. Let me put it this way: "I know Satan exists, because of the way people act. I know God exists, because Satan hasn't destroyed us yet."

Also, Grandpa Troll needs to get off those frigging painkillers, stat.

Wow, you are consistent if anything.

personality flaw = psychological problem

origin of morals = theology debate

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blake


You are born into the fools game.

You are expected to run through mazes and jump through hoops to get food, navigate more mazes and jump through more hoops to find a mate, (more hoops) breed, raise some little fools (and teach them how to navigate the maze and jump through hoops) and then you die, wondering wtf was the point of what you just did.

The other attitude to take, is to sit on your bum and say "No. Not playing!"

Happily the fool's game is self-propagating, the fools themselves run the fools game, there is no gamemaster who is going to punish you for not playing. You really can just not play.
And sure the people who are frenetically playing the fool's game will be like "Heeey you slacker! Stop slacking off having fun! This game is important you know!!!!", you just laugh at them, because sitting on your bum watching the fools run around (and trying to cajole them into joining you) is a million times more fun than playing the fool's game.



"An excess of reason is itself a form of madness"

If you ask "Why should I deserve to be happy", "Why should anyone be happy", that is an excess of reason.

I'm sorry. I can't just assume that God exists and believe it too. There has to be a basis in that assumption which brings us to the question, "Why don't you just assume the obvious?, that there is no God or order" Assumptions have to be obvious or they don't work.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm sorry. I can't just assume that God exists and believe it too. There has to be a basis in that assumption which brings us to the question, "Why don't you just assume the obvious?, that there is no God or order" Assumptions have to be obvious or they don't work.

What does God have to do with anything?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Blake
Science tries to explain the mind. Buddhism succeeds.

How does Buddhism "succeed"?

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Blake [/SIZE
Science actually can't step on the toes of Buddhism.

This is because, Buddhism explains the mind through direct experience - it is the path for someone to understand their own mind.

How would that be understanding though? You certainly can't communicate your findings, and how can you be sure that you are truely understanding your mind rather then imposing some ideology onto it? What methods of verification are there?

Originally posted by Blake
Science attempts to explain the mind without direct experience, it attempts to explain it through indirect experience. Science attempts to explain minds - plural. Buddhism explains the mind - your one.

Well, science does use direct experience (accounts of experience as well as that of the scientists), but the problem is that introspective methods (which I believe we could call Buddhism) can't uncover some of the unconcious machinery present in our minds, it's got tons of verification problems (how do you know that you are actually correct), and often relies on analogies. The integrative approach of science, which looks at the problem on all angles does a much more rigorious and better job.

Originally posted by Blake
The scientific approach, will never succeed. It can't. The mind isn't like that*. The day a scientist adopts the approach which does succeed, they have basically become a Buddhist. They may not call themselves a Buddhist, but they're quacking like one.

* The basic point is. That all the information on the world could be compiled on what minds look like from the outside. And someone who reads and assimilates all that information, would still be no closer to understanding WHAT the mind actually is, it's like reading all the information on the chemical compounds which form truffles (or some other food), and then believing you know what truffles taste like.

Well, cognitive science takes a very integrative approach. They certainly aren't just scanning a brain, and then corresponding it to behaviors and in fact do talk about internal states and how we percieve things and the like. Certainly, it doesn't explain what exactly it is like to have a mind, but there's not that big a need for that because we all have minds.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blake
Not really. The question of "Why should I deserve happiness" is a philosophical one and thinkers should not shy away from any question.

If someone actually answers that question with a resounding "I don't deserve happiness!", or is in the process of convincing themselves of the truth of that. Then that IS a sign of severe depression.

It's the correct answer either way. There is nothing good about us, except that we like ourselves. You don't deserve things to be true just because you want them to be. A child deserves a cookie, for example, because the parents says they do. If there is no parent "deserve" has no meaning.

But the question itself, IS a trap. It has no answer, you can speculate and rationalize endlessly but wont reach a conclusion which is better than nothing. Putting energy into trying to answer it, simply makes you unhappy, results in a troubled mind lacking in peacefulness. Asking the question is a sign of foolishness, persisting in seeking an answer leads to unhappiness, believing you have an answer is delusion.

This IS one of those questions, were it's much wiser to ask not "What do I think" but "What do I really feel"
"Is it good to be happy?"
And that is where the answer is found.

It doesn't make you unhappy if you answer the question once. After all it's obvious. Why do I deserve to be happy? I don't, but who cares I will anyway. If you simply say I can't answer it you are the one fooling yourself.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Perfection
How does Buddhism "succeed"?

How would that be understanding though? You certainly can't communicate your findings, and how can you be sure that you are truely understanding your mind rather then imposing some ideology onto it? What methods of verification are there?

It succeeds pragmatically. The point of science is to learn something useful, Buddhism succeeds in this regard. It succeeds far far far far far far far beyond science, in terms of improving enjoyment of life.

Well, science does use direct experience (accounts of experience as well as that of the scientists), but the problem is that introspective methods (which I believe we could call Buddhism) can't uncover some of the unconcious machinery present in our minds, it's got tons of verification problems (how do you know that you are actually correct), and relies on analogies.

It doesn't matter. The benefit of Buddhism are received by the practitioner. Who cares if it's "correct" or not if it works superbly.

Which is a large part of the reason why science can do whatever it wants. Buddhism doesn't care about verification problems. If it's personally verifiable then it's verified.