I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:46 pm

phyllo wrote: :-k The central core of Christianity? Probably it's the relationship of God and man.
Yes, that is a much stronger position. The Ten Commandments, which Jesus deepened in the NT, focuses on this first, then moves out to other moral issues. Relationship with God, then being a good person/parent/family member--->community member. That seems central to me.

I think sex is more important that death in the Bible. There is a lot of killing, but especially under Jesus the rules around Sex get very strict - you can't even cheat in your mind. Then the Adam & Eve story can be take sexually. Sodom and Gomorrah. The Virgin Birth. Jesus, John The Baptist, Elijah, Paul at least for most of his life.

It's like you read everything with a focus on finding a subconscious fear of death.
He's not unlike Iamb here. There is an implict 'I am braver than thou' since you hide in religion (can't face your fear of death) or contraptions (can't face whatever fear that goes into Iamb's hole which he is facing. In both cases we are dealing with someone who wants to radically oversimplify human diversity (whatever the irony this creates with other beliefs of theirs).
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:00 pm

He's not unlike Iamb here. There is an implict 'I am braver than thou' since you hide in religion (can't face your fear of death) or contraptions (can't face whatever fear that goes into Iamb's hole which he is facing. In both cases we are dealing with someone who wants to radically oversimplify human diversity (whatever the irony this creates with other beliefs of theirs).


Just for the record, it's not a question of atheists being "braver" than Buddhists and other religious advocates. After all, how on earth would that - could that -- be determined given the extraordinary complexity built into all of the variables that come together over the course of any particular life to predispose both the religious and nonreligious to think and to feel what they do. Embedded in myriad genes and memes embedded in conscious, subconscious and unconscious components of "I" embedded in a particular world understood from a particular point of view.

The social, political and economic permutations here alone are off the charts.

Instead, my frame of mind revolves more around the extent to which value judgments [religious or otherwise] serve to sustain some measure of psychological comfort and consolation in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. It's not that you are a Buddhist or a Christian or a Mormon or a Scientologist. It's that being religious allows you to anchor "I" in "the right thing to do" on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side.

Broaching dasein here is to suggest just the opposite of an oversimplified "self" interacting in an oversimplified "society". It is to suggest instead that both "I" and "we" are embedded in frames of mind that are profoundly problematic.

In other words, calling your own "self" a pragmatist in regard to Buddhism [or to any other set of value judgments], doesn't make the components of my own moral philosophy go away. The "hole" that "I" am in is derived from the philosophical assumption that in a No God world human identity can only be derived existentially from a particular set of variables derived from a particular world into which one is fortuitously thrown at birth. And then the part where we are indoctrinated as a child. And, then, given the nature of contingency, chance and change embedded in the "human condition", the part where "I" is ever subject to refabrication from the cradle to the grave. Depending on which particular experiences one encounters in which particular set of contexts.

Unless of course through religion or reason or political ideology or enlightenment or assessment of nature etc., one comes to conclude that there is an optimal or a one and only rational assessment.

That's when I request this assessment be brought out into the world of actual conflicting goods, given a particular context.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:11 pm

Buddhism describes a No God universe. And change and the "refabrication" of "I" is exactly the reason that Buddhism says that there is no self.

Yet when one states that there is no self, Iambig reacts as if it's a ridiculous idea. :lol:

:-k What am I missing here?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:22 pm

KT,

Hmm. If we take John 3:16 within the context of Christianity as a whole, and not a stand-alone statement, I think the primary objective is to reconcile man with God. The promise of eternal life is the greatest reward for believing in Jesus, I don't think that is disputable. As such, it is very possible that Christianity acts upon the fear of death. But because the offer is explicit – it requires us to make a conscious choice. I don't dispute that the subconscious mind is a factor in such a decision, but there are other psychological factors at play, such as our inclination to believe in something/someone like Jesus.

We cannot IMV isolate one particular subconscious factor that John 3:16 is appealing to within the context of Christianity, no matter how obvious it seems to us consciously (not to mention how our own subconscious' effects our thinking on such a matter), and then claim that this is the factor - which is where I believe Prismatic is off. I don't think it is *only* the fear of death that drives people to make the decision to believe in Jesus, as Prismatic seems to imply. There are of course different layers of psychological factors at play.

I've heard quite a lot of testimonies about people who became believers, and not one of them gave the fear of death as a reason for their choice. Most of them wanted to change their lives, because they'd hit rock bottom. Prismatic can always say “the fear of death is subconscious, so people aren't consciously aware of it”, but that claim is unfalsifiable. From my perspective, it seems strange to claim that Christianity is based upon the subconscious fear of death. If not at least for the fact that so much of it is based upon how we live, and answering existential questions. It plays not only on our fears, but also our hopes and dreams!
Fanman
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:30 pm

phyllo wrote:Buddhism describes a No God universe. And change and the "refabrication" of "I" is exactly the reason that Buddhism says that there is no self.


Come on, I adressed this:

The illusion of self? Right. Like our biological, historical, cultural and experiential self isn't something that we tote around with us [rather substantively] from the cradle to the grave. In fact, from my perspective, the self becomes less and less substantial the closer we get to those contexts in which we most want it to be whole: in the is/ought world and when we die.

And what is religion if not the perfect invention to make "I" that way?


Now, you may not share in this assessment, but how would you show that it is necessarily the wrong approach to understanding the self of any particular one of us? And I am certainly not arguing that it is necessarily the right approach. My assessments are no less the product of dasein than yours in my view.

As for the role that No God plays in Buddhism, how then does it explain existence itself? How was the Buddha able to justify his own path to enlightenment in a No God world? It would seem that the only alternative here is pantheism. It's not a "personal God", but somehow the universe/nature is set up so that Enlightenment itself is synonymous with Buddhism's very own precepts.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:47 pm

KT,

From my perspective, it is wrong or a fallacy to read about the subconscious mind (without any formal education/training or actual experience in the field of psychology) and believe that one has a handle on it. More so to the point where one can create sound, detailed arguments about how the subconscious relates to religious decisions and behaviours for all human-beings. As such I think that Prismatic is way off, and if he believes that he is unequivocally right, which I think he does, then he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Basically, if he's right, then he is a genius. With respect to him, I don't think he is :angry-nono: .
Fanman
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:20 pm

Prismatic,

My vision and Mission is striving to achieve 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity' to ensure the preservation of the human species.
This is an ideal [an impossibility] but it is nevertheless a guiding target where humanity continually improve towards it.


Which involves?

With respect to the above, theism [not theists] is an inferior ideology and practice relative other more advanced spiritual theories and practices, e.g. Buddhism-proper and others.
If we compare the Abrahamic religions in terms of their spiritual elements, practices and results, to Buddhism and the likes, it is so obvious, the Abrahamic religions are inferior in terms of striving towards 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity.'


What is Buddhism-proper? One ideology being inferior to another is a matter of perspective, not fact.

I am not promoting Buddhism and others, but I an expecting [in the future] all the advanced spiritual theories will consolidate into one efficient and fool-proof general 'spiritual' theory and practices that can expedite humanity towards the ideal 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity.'


Optimal spirituality without belief in anything, except science?

Yes, discussion is necessary but arguments* are most critical to justify why my proposals are reasonable in improving towards 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity.'
* it is philosophical arguments not in the sense of being argumentative without justifications.
Note 'argument' below. My reference to 'argument' is not the first meaning but to the rest of the other meanings below.


I don't want to take part in your vision for 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity.' is that a problem? How would you deal with people who have a different vision from yours? What about people who don't want peace, how would you deal with them?
Fanman
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:52 pm

What is Buddhism-proper? One ideology being inferior to another is a matter of perspective, not fact.
Buddhism-proper is whatever Prismatic believes about Buddhism. Everything he does not believe about Buddhism is part of Buddhism-improper.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:46 am

phyllo wrote:
That is my point, 'death' is a big part of it.
No. Your point is that that religion is entirely about fear of death. You have thrown away everything else. You lost most of the foundations for the existence of religions.

My point is the fear of death simmering within the subconscious mind is the most critical factor that is responsible for the emergence of religions.

I don't deny there are many other factors underlying the reasons for religion, but I have to give 'the subconscious fear of death' a significant weightage - priority as I had justified as evident from the religious texts and behavior of religionists.

Are you familiar with using weightages in decision making?

Thus in my review of the basis for religion, there could many reasons, but I will give 'the subconscious fear of death' a weightage of 90%, the rest will share the rest of the 10%.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:06 am

phyllo wrote:
Actually you cannot conclude with the above until you have analyzed all the mainstream religions.
Suggesting that you have done this analysis and that I have not?

I was suggesting the requirement.
I believed I have met the requirement with some exceptions.
If you think you have then you can declare you position, preferable with details if possible to support the credibility of your statements.

The whole focus on Buddhism is on Dukkha [1st Noble Truth], i.e. existential pains and nothing much on how to live a happy life and other life developments.
Where in the 4 Noble Truths is the question 'Why am I here?' and the other questions you raised above?
The only likely link is 'what is death' as in the Buddha Story, which leads into the 4NT in terms of 'dukkha' from the subconscious fear of death.
Buddhism presumes once a person takes care of the existential sufferings arising from the subconscious fear of death, the person will be able to handle what is the rest of human life.
I don't know what you are reading. It's all there. Karma, rebirth, nirvana, .... the 10,000 lists of what a person ought to do. Most Buddhist versions love their lists.

There are perhaps 100s or even thousands of themes within Buddhism and the various schools of Buddhism.
However there is only one core ethos and core principles plus sub-principles.

The core ethos of Buddhism is the 4NT followed by the 8FP.
The supporting of this is the Buddha Story.
The core principles of Buddhism are impermanence [anicca or anitya ], anatman [anatta], co-dependent origination, Sunyata, the two-truth theory, the Middle-Path [if missed any, it would be one or two]

The 100s and 1000s of other elements within Buddhism will be sub-elements and sub-principles to the above.
Show me one Buddhism's element that cannot be categorized within the above.

The central core of Christianity, John 3:16 of the Gospel is similar to Buddhism's dealing with the subconscious fear of death albeit in different ways.
It's like you read everything with a focus on finding a subconscious fear of death.

:-k The central core of Christianity? Probably it's the relationship of God and man.

It is due to the subconscious fear of death that drives a Christian to establish a personal relationship with God so that the Christian is assured of eternal life thus to soothe the subconscious fear of death.
It is the same with Muslims and Allah, if anyone is a threat to their relationship with God SOME Muslims will kill them to ensure the indirect pains from the subconscious fear of death do not torment them.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:12 am

phyllo wrote:
What is Buddhism-proper? One ideology being inferior to another is a matter of perspective, not fact.
Buddhism-proper is whatever Prismatic believes about Buddhism. Everything he does not believe about Buddhism is part of Buddhism-improper.
And the same goes for Chrisitianity.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:15 am

Fanman wrote:We cannot IMV isolate one particular subconscious factor that John 3:16 is appealing to within the context of Christianity, no matter how obvious it seems to us consciously (not to mention how our own subconscious' effects our thinking on such a matter), and then claim that this is the factor - which is where I believe Prismatic is off.
oh, I agree. I don't think his thesis as a whole works at all. I just think it is fair to say that humans do fear death, that statement says there is a possibility of eternal life, and that given the second point, that statement will offer hope of not dying.


I don't think it is *only* the fear of death that drives people to make the decision to believe in Jesus, as Prismatic seems to imply. There are of course different layers of psychological factors at play.
And even experiences and pragmatic results.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:15 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

You're the 1st person I've heard claim that John 3:16 is dealing with the subconscious fear of death. How did you reach that conclusion?


My argument;

    1. All humans strive to live, thus to avoid death.
    2. To avoid death, all humans are imputed with the fear of death subconsciously.
    3. The subconscious fear of death generate indirect existential pains.
    4. The assurance of God of the Christian in John 3:16 i.e. guarantee eternal life and effectively remove the indirect existential pains.
    5. Therefore John 3:16 is linked with the subconscious fear of death.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:20 am

Fanman wrote:KT,

From my perspective, it is wrong or a fallacy to read about the subconscious mind (without any formal education/training or actual experience in the field of psychology) and believe that one has a handle on it. More so to the point where one can create sound, detailed arguments about how the subconscious relates to religious decisions and behaviours for all human-beings. As such I think that Prismatic is way off, and if he believes that he is unequivocally right, which I think he does, then he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Basically, if he's right, then he is a genius. With respect to him, I don't think he is :angry-nono: .
Sure, I agree. There are rampant problems: he presents his evaluation of his having been rational as if this is added evidence, he appeals to authority (often Kant, if not himself), he makes mind reading claims, he does not know the religions he talks about except primarily via books, he oversimplifies, he has a strong agenda and does not seem to realize how this can lead to bias...and so on.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:37 am

Fanman wrote:KT,

From my perspective, it is wrong or a fallacy to read about the subconscious mind (without any formal education/training or actual experience in the field of psychology) and believe that one has a handle on it. More so to the point where one can create sound, detailed arguments about how the subconscious relates to religious decisions and behaviours for all human-beings. As such I think that Prismatic is way off, and if he believes that he is unequivocally right, which I think he does, then he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Basically, if he's right, then he is a genius. With respect to him, I don't think he is :angry-nono: .

As mentioned I am guided by arguments with are soundly justified with empirical evidences.

All human actions are dominated by the unconscious mind [say 90% relatively] with the conscious mind [10%].
While we may not have a great grasp of the unconscious mind, the human database on the unconscious mind to date is sufficient for us to infer, which I had inferred the subconscious fear of death is a critical factor that drive the majority of humans to religions.

There are tons and tons of research scientists has done with the unconscious mind.
Note Pavlov with dogs,
https://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html
This knowledge has been used to learn and improve human behaviors
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bound ... ditioning/

Buddhism is essentially existential psychology that deal with the existential pains arising from the subconscious fear of death [ultimate root cause] is which so evident with the principles and sutras of the various Buddhist schools.
Actually the equation with Buddhism re the subconscious fear of death is so easy, i.e.
anatman = no self, thus no self to die, thus the subconscious fear of death is unwarranted.
The question is how can the Buddhist practitioner condition himself to such an equation.
This why the Noble Eightfold Path is used to do the conditioning via a complicated set of mindfulness exercises.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:55 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

My vision and Mission is striving to achieve 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity' to ensure the preservation of the human species.
This is an ideal [an impossibility] but it is nevertheless a guiding target where humanity continually improve towards it.


Which involves?

With respect to the above, theism [not theists] is an inferior ideology and practice relative other more advanced spiritual theories and practices, e.g. Buddhism-proper and others.
If we compare the Abrahamic religions in terms of their spiritual elements, practices and results, to Buddhism and the likes, it is so obvious, the Abrahamic religions are inferior in terms of striving towards 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity.'


What is Buddhism-proper? One ideology being inferior to another is a matter of perspective, not fact.

Superiority and inferiority is objective based on the consequences of morality from each of the religion.

Just compared the number of people killed that is directly commanded from its authorized religious texts the command of its God.
In this criteria, as evident, surely we can state objectively Buddhism, Christianity and others are more superior to Islam where its God exhort Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under very vague threats.

In term of numbers killed, by believers of pacifist religions, there are less violence and number of people killed by Buddhists than Christians. Therefore it is objectively true, Buddhism is more superior than Christianity.

We can compare the doctrines and practices advocated by each religion to compare their ranking objectively.

I am not promoting Buddhism and others, but I an expecting [in the future] all the advanced spiritual theories will consolidate into one efficient and fool-proof general 'spiritual' theory and practices that can expedite humanity towards the ideal 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity.'

Optimal spirituality without belief in anything, except science?

No, but science is fundamental and it is complimented with Philosophy, with its tools of logic, morality, ethics, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.

Yes, discussion is necessary but arguments* are most critical to justify why my proposals are reasonable in improving towards 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity.'
* it is philosophical arguments not in the sense of being argumentative without justifications.
Note 'argument' below. My reference to 'argument' is not the first meaning but to the rest of the other meanings below.


I don't want to take part in your vision for 'Perpetual Peace for Humanity.' is that a problem? How would you deal with people who have a different vision from yours? What about people who don't want peace, how would you deal with them?

It is not my peace mission.
If you are a progressive human being in alignment with evolution, you will naturally gravitate toward the highest morality.
DNA-RNA wise, All humans are embedded with [like a faculty of intellect, reason] a faculty of morality and ethics.
One can infer this trend toward the highest morality from actions, experiences, behaviors of the average and peak performers among human all over the world from the time human first emerge to the present. [Evidence available, I won't go into it].

For those who are not inclined to peace [lack moral compass] then humanity will strive to trigger and activate the natural endowed faculty of morality within them in a fool proof approach. Perhaps using principles of Pavlov conditions and other effective methods.
This will not happen at present but very feasible in the future when humanity has achieved the goals of the Human Connectome Project,
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
in mapping all the neural connectivity of the human brain.
In this case, the conditioning can be directed at specific areas of the brain instead trial and error, hit and miss black-box methods.

So in the meantime we have no choice but to leave those who do not have an inclination towards peace [highest good] to themselves and hope they will change for the better or worse and rely on legislation if they resort to evil.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:20 am

phyllo wrote:
What is Buddhism-proper? One ideology being inferior to another is a matter of perspective, not fact.
Buddhism-proper is whatever Prismatic believes about Buddhism. Everything he does not believe about Buddhism is part of Buddhism-improper.

Yes Buddhism-proper, i.e. that which is alignment with the core principles of Buddhism.

The fact is Buddhism-proper was too advance for the majority of people during Gautama's time and even now.
This is why Buddhism as practiced then has to be compromised to allow the lay-people to follow at least the basic with the hope they will advance in time.

That the majority of Buddhists everywhere are making offerings, praying with candles and joss-sticks to a statue of Buddha was never recommended by the Buddha. The creeping in of the idea of rebirth literally into other realms is not Buddhism-proper.
Those who are experts in Buddhism would recognized what they have to recommend to the lay-Buddhist are actually bastardized and corrupted Buddhism, but they don't mind because what they recommended is optimal to the current spiritual state of the lay-Buddhists.

Problem with the above is, the advancement Buddhism-proper was very slow until recently with the internet and spread of Buddhism in the English West.
I would not have been able to cover the full range of Buddhism if not for the English translations of the various sutras from the various schools which is now easily available in the internet and in the many books.
I am optimistic Buddhism-proper will progress speedily from now on and morphed into a generic spiritual practice which its principles will dominate but no one then will call it Buddhism.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:26 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:
What is Buddhism-proper? One ideology being inferior to another is a matter of perspective, not fact.
Buddhism-proper is whatever Prismatic believes about Buddhism. Everything he does not believe about Buddhism is part of Buddhism-improper.
And the same goes for Chrisitianity.

Yes, there is Christianity-proper like the one I proposed that is driven by a contract [covenant] centered upon John 3:16 and influenced by the subconscious fear of death.
Fanman was a Christian and he would have not viewed Christianity from this angle.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:45 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Fanman wrote:We cannot IMV isolate one particular subconscious factor that John 3:16 is appealing to within the context of Christianity, no matter how obvious it seems to us consciously (not to mention how our own subconscious' effects our thinking on such a matter), and then claim that this is the factor - which is where I believe Prismatic is off.
oh, I agree. I don't think his thesis as a whole works at all. I just think it is fair to say that humans do fear death, that statement says there is a possibility of eternal life, and that given the second point, that statement will offer hope of not dying.


I don't think it is *only* the fear of death that drives people to make the decision to believe in Jesus, as Prismatic seems to imply. There are of course different layers of psychological factors at play.
And even experiences and pragmatic results.

I have never insisted the subconscious fear of death is the ONLY reason that drives a person to Christianity.
I have stated it is the utmost critical reason that generate into many sub-reasons.

There are other reasons why a person convert into Christianity, e.g. to marry his spouse, political reasons, social reasons. etc.
There are those who are born into a Christian family.

However when the person have any 'spiritual' impulse toward his religion, that is due to the trigger of the subconscious fear of death. This is where to social Christian turn to be a born-again to reactivate his personal contract with Jesus/God.

Obviously because it is the subconscious fear of death, he will not feel it directly but will be triggered by indirectly reasons such as feeling a loss of meaning of life, anxious, feeling empty, feeling loss, various anxieties, Angst, stressed and various negative feelings, but the person felt immediately relief to such sufferings upon accepting Jesus/God and establishing a person relationship with Jesus/God with an emphasis of a hope of eternal life in paradise.

Note the contrast, if a person suffer from physical pain say, prick by a thorn, then removing the thorn will bring immediate relief. If a person has a mental suffering due to loss of his assets by theft, the recovery of his assets will bring immediate relief.

In the case of mental sufferings exuded indirectly from the subconscious fear of death, the person suffering the mental pains do not have a clue where it is coming from. But the surrender and acceptance of Jesus/God would bring immediate relief to such existential pains. Since the root is from the subconscious fear of death, the person will not be conscious of it, thus linked to the most like conscious causes, e.g. wanting to have a relationship with God.

    Note this analogy.
    When a person want to have relationship with the opposite sex, s/he will give all sort of reason s/he is conscious and can think of, e.g. legalize sex, marriage, babies, a partner for mutual help, etc.
    But the ultimate root cause, is the drive to preserve the human species, i.e. in general [there are exception] the person is driven to a relationship by nature so that they can f... so that they will produce the next generation to ensure the preservation of the human species.
    Humans are able to bypass this intent, but the inherent drive to preserve the human species is always there.

As for the above analogy, humans are not conscious of the ultimate inherent drive planted in the unconscious for many of their conscious actions.
Thus the majority of humans are not aware whatever conscious actions they take towards their religion, the ultimate driver is due to the unconscious fear of death.
The unconscious fear of death as I have argued is driven by the will-to-live which will ensure the preservation of the species.

The test is the element of the subconscious fear of death is active internally when the Christian feel the assurance of eternal life in paradise.

There are Christians who are Christian by name only who do not give a damn with the promise of eternal life in paradise as in John 3:16, e.g. the social Christian, a person born into a Christian family, they could not care less if they commit whatever sins, then their subconscious fear of death would not be active. In this case, the are not Christian-proper but rather pseudo-Christians.

But I believe the majority of Christians would at the least keep the promise of eternal life by Jesus/God via John 3:16 as a "joker card" where they can draw upon it wherever the need arises. In this case, they are still driven by the subconscious fear of death at the minimum so they qualify as Christian-proper.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:23 am

KT,

I just think it is fair to say that humans do fear death, that statement says there is a possibility of eternal life, and that given the second point, that statement will offer hope of not dying.

That's right.
And even experiences and pragmatic results.

Exactly.
Fanman
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:24 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Fanman wrote:KT,

From my perspective, it is wrong or a fallacy to read about the subconscious mind (without any formal education/training or actual experience in the field of psychology) and believe that one has a handle on it. More so to the point where one can create sound, detailed arguments about how the subconscious relates to religious decisions and behaviours for all human-beings. As such I think that Prismatic is way off, and if he believes that he is unequivocally right, which I think he does, then he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Basically, if he's right, then he is a genius. With respect to him, I don't think he is :angry-nono: .
Sure, I agree. There are rampant problems: he presents his evaluation of his having been rational as if this is added evidence, he appeals to authority (often Kant, if not himself), he makes mind reading claims, he does not know the religions he talks about except primarily via books, he oversimplifies, he has a strong agenda and does not seem to realize how this can lead to bias...and so on.

You are merely making generalized statements without basis.
I would suggest you take every bit of my arguments and counter them.
So far you have not given me any convincing counter.
If so which one?

On the other hand if you have the ultimate root cause, the penultimate or pre-penultimate causes of the drive towards religion, present your arguments.
The general striving in any field of knowledge is always seeking its ultimate root cause, if not, the penultimate or pre-penultimate.
Note Physics' search for the ultimate particle and the philosophical quest for the ultimate essence or substance.
Philosophically the absolute ultimate is impossible but by striving towards the ultimate, new knowledge will be discovered.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:33 pm

KT,

Sure, I agree. There are rampant problems: he presents his evaluation of his having been rational as if this is added evidence, he appeals to authority (often Kant, if not himself), he makes mind reading claims, he does not know the religions he talks about except primarily via books, he oversimplifies, he has a strong agenda and does not seem to realize how this can lead to bias...and so on.

Best if you don't answer, but I wonder why he is like this? In his response to you he said you were generalising? This is clearly not a generalization, but an observation, it is based specifically upon what he's stated. I would call this objective, and I think you are right.
Last edited by Fanman on Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:39 pm

Double post sorry.
Fanman
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:53 pm

Fanman wrote:KT,

Sure, I agree. There are rampant problems: he presents his evaluation of his having been rational as if this is added evidence, he appeals to authority (often Kant, if not himself), he makes mind reading claims, he does not know the religions he talks about except primarily via books, he oversimplifies, he has a strong agenda and does not seem to realize how this can lead to bias...and so on.

Best if you don't answer, but I wonder why he is like this? In his response to you he said you were generalising? This is clearly not a generalization, but an observation, it is based specifically upon what he's stated. I would call this objective, and I think you are right.[/q, of course it was a set of generalizations. I used to get more specific with Prismatic, but found it frustrating and ultimately fruitless. IOW I would go into specific points AND keep after him on specific points. My sense was that I was dealing with a primarily closed mind, unless a new idea helped him refine his position or strengthened it. I also felt like he did not fully understand solid argumentation. Now my approach is mostly via third parties, occasionally directly interacting, but then not expecting that anything will every be conceded, so I do not pursue points. And yes, occasionally in relation to third parties I make general comments, intended as general comments. Third parties, such as yourself, are free to judge for themselves of course, as you have.

You suggest it's best not to answer the issue of why is he like this. But I think the answer is one that has nothing to do with Prismatic in particular - though there would be that answer also. We all do this. We all avoid cognitive dissonance. We all compete rather than explore when our ideas are important to us or our sense of ourselves as smart or penetrating or wholly rational seems at stake. We all have biases and stakes in out positions and at some points, at least, will refuse to acknowledge a criticism due to emotional slippery slope fears. If I admit this, then perhaps the whole edifice will fall. And youth and inexperience can play a role. Also poor introspective abilities. If you don't notice the full range of things a criticism raises in you, you don't know why you are reacting the way you do.

Some people do this more often than others.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:38 pm

Prismatic,

I have never insisted the subconscious fear of death is the ONLY reason that drives a person to Christianity.
I have stated it is the utmost critical reason that generate into many sub-reasons.


It doesn't seem that you did, my apologies. How did you obtain your perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?

There are other reasons why a person convert into Christianity, e.g. to marry his spouse, political reasons, social reasons. etc.
There are those who are born into a Christian family.


Not belief?

Obviously because it is the subconscious fear of death, he will not feel it directly but will be triggered by indirectly reasons such as feeling a loss of meaning of life, anxious, feeling empty, feeling loss, various anxieties, Angst, stressed and various negative feelings, but the person felt immediately relief to such sufferings upon accepting Jesus/God and establishing a person relationship with Jesus/God with an emphasis of a hope of eternal life in paradise.


This is a diagnosis.

Note the contrast, if a person suffer from physical pain say, prick by a thorn, then removing the thorn will bring immediate relief. If a person has a mental suffering due to loss of his assets by theft, the recovery of his assets will bring immediate relief.


IMV, these examples are too far removed from the many effects of religious belief to be analogous.

There are Christians who are Christian by name only who do not give a damn with the promise of eternal life in paradise as in John 3:16, e.g. the social Christian, a person born into a Christian family, they could not care less if they commit whatever sins, then their subconscious fear of death would not be active. In this case, the are not Christian-proper but rather pseudo-Christians.


I agree there are Christians who are only Christians by name, but I don't understand how you inferred the rest of what you stated here. I don't see how you can assess the state of someone's subconscious, when the person is theoretical?

But I believe the majority of Christians would at the least keep the promise of eternal life by Jesus/God via John 3:16 as a "joker card" where they can draw upon it wherever the need arises. In this case, they are still driven by the subconscious fear of death at the minimum so they qualify as Christian-proper.


Que?
Fanman
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users