Indigenous groups tend not to want to change and mold the world, favoring instead an adaptation to the world.
He wrote that it “works”. I just proposed a criteria for what “works” could mean - scientific and technological advancement. I moved away from concentrating on personal subjective “happy brain juices” to something that could be measured and compared.
I’m using it. One can’t know which of the events described in the New Testament really happened. One can’t know if Jesus was really the son of God.
But one can know the consequences of having Christianity as a personal and/or state religion are. And one can compare those consequences to the consequences of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.
Sure, there are lots of factors at play, besides personal/state religions, but one can see some trends. One trend is that Buddhism achieves almost nothing scientific. Why? Because it’s too internally focused.
I’m bypassing the abstract debates and I’m talking about what is practical and effective.
I don’t think that’s really the case. 1492 is a nice summation of a lot of the research about indigenous groups in the Americas before Columbus’ arrival and they were doing all sorts of terraforming, for example. But on a smaller scale, like say with medicinal herbs, they were doing all sorts of empirical type research, using plants, in combinations and singly, processing them, often in complicated ways, for their own use. IOW they aimed emprical research at nature, changed it, and used it. IOW their beliefs lay a groundwork for science and technology. And how do we judge the success of their choices about what to study and what to change? Christianity tells us we have dominion over nature, and that nature/the world is not that important. That facet of Christianity might lead to the radical turning everything into products we do. We’ll see if that should be called successful fairly soon I would guess.
I do think the technocrats have inherited the arrogance of built into Christianity in relation to nature, for example.
And that’s not just a politically correct rewriting of history? 
Well sure, advanced technology may kill us all … bio weapons, nuclear weapons, genetic engineering and AI are just a few of the ways. And then there is the depletion of resources by “efficiently” manufacturing useless crap. Therefore, advanced technology may not even be considered a “good”. Maybe sustainability is a critical term in the evaluation of what is “good” and worth pursuing. And indigenous populations probably value that much more than North American Christians.
My goal here is to move away from “happy brain juices” discussion and towards something real and tangible.
Yes, I admit it works but it works directly only for psychological benefits, i.e. theistic religions work to soothe the existential crisis in promising salvation with eternal life in Paradise.
Nope, got to be joking, there is no way one can link scientific and technological advancements directly to the holy texts of Christianity or religions. I don’t want to drag into this argument. If you insist you can keep it, I don’t want to waste my time on it.
As stated above, religions work directly for psychological benefits, i.e. soothe the existential crisis and angst.
True Buddhism achieves nothing scientific because that is not the purpose of Buddhism as a religion [Ninian Smart’s definition].
True Buddhism is very focused internally [explicit in the Buddha’s Story and 4 Noble Truths] because psychological and life stability require very strong internal psychological foundations and stuctures to deal with the inevitable turbulences in life.
4 Noble Truths
The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)
Buddhism faces reality and deal with it effectively.
The Abrahamic religions focused on an illusion [God] thus flimsy.
If that were true then why would there be so much guilt and fear about eternal damnation. Why have any punishment for sin? Why have a doctrine of original sin? Why have Jesus say that “all have fallen short of the glory of God”?
If it’s all about “soothing” then it would make much more sense to create a religion with a blissful afterlife in heaven and no hell.
As if you can just separate science from a person’s religious and philosophical beliefs. Maybe like “today I’m doing science so the world is not just illusion … today it’s real and objective with permanent laws … until 5 o’clock when I go home.”
Buddhism makes all sort of claims about the nature of existence. Perhaps they are no more real than the claims of the other religions.
The noble truths may not be as noble or truthy as you believe.
Very true, Phyllo. There exists today progressive religious sects who do not believe in the corrupt nature of man as determining some afterlife of non-punitive torture. See Matthew Fox’s “Original Blessing”.
In any event it makes little sense to me to anthropomorphize brain chemistry by suggesting what thoughts it can or can create without considering the genetic evolution of the brain as a source of such thoughts. Existential angst may only amount to incentive to move forward, which, if not followed, could be experienced as negative. Feeling good may, as I continue to emphasize, may only be the indication that everything is working properly. The brain is the supervisory organ for all bodily processes. When body parts malfunction the brain expresses pain, depression, etc., all of the negatives which require no further explanation than that they are experienced.
Ah, but go to a Western doctor and he/she orders some tests. If the tests show “nothing”, then you are dismissed as a hypochondriac. Your pains are imaginary.
If the doctor or medical team is sensitive enough to localize a body site of distress, they may be able to relieve it. I’ve see many “demons” exorcized by modern meds. Besides, hypochondria indicates something is amiss in the brain’s normal functioning. The something does not have to be labeled a demon.
Success in adapting causes “feel good” juice" experiences. Failure to adapt prompts experiences of existential angst. Why would anyone relegate this experience of angst to a religion based on humans as rotten to the core?
The point is that “the tests” establish whether you are sick or not … your personal experience is dismissed. That’s why people turn away from Western medicine … they don’t feel like they are being heard.
Isn’t the above obvious.
The existential crisis generate all the existential angst related to
guilt and fear about eternal damnation.
Instead of explaining the real cause i.e. Christianity use the concept of the original sin to invoke the natural guilt and fear of eternal damnation [existential extermination]
The above problems are actually and fundamentally driven by human psychology.
Religion thus use the idea of God to neutralize the above problems psychologically.
Example;
If a group of people are trapped 1000 feet in a diamond mine and knowing they are facing certain death [existential crisis], they will surely be triggered psychologically, i.e. worry, be anxious, in despairs and suffer all sort of terrible existential fears. But if they get actual news help is on the way very soon comprising the latest rescuing technology, they will get immediate relief and all the terrible existential fears will disappear immediately except for maybe the minimal reservation until they are really safe above ground
Note when they get the news help is on the way, there is no certainty yet, it is only information and what works is only based on belief, trust and faith that things will work well.
From the above the principle is this;
The problem started psychologically as triggered by an existential crisis and it is psychology [belief help is on the way] that resolve the initial psychologically driven existential fears.
The above is the same with religion;
Theists as human suffer from an inherent existential crisis that generate terrible existential psychological states. [guilt from sins, threat of hell, etc.]
It is religion and their beliefs [eternal life in heaven] that can give immediate psychological reliefs inhibit those existential angst.
In the sense those activities of Science and religion are from the same mind of a person, we cannot separate them.
But it is a fact, Science and religion are conditioned to their respective Framework and System.
There is no way Mendel can make genetic claims insisting God said so and nothing else. The only way Mendel theories can be accepted is because they complied with the Scientific Framework and System and they are not based on the Bible as an authority for Science.
Thus the Framework and System of Science and religions are independent of each other in terms of scientific knowledge and doctrines respectively.
Whatever claims made by Buddhism as truth they have to be JTBs, i.e. justified true beliefs.
Here is one point from the Dalai Lama reflecting the essence of Buddhism re knowledge.
Will the representative of any Abrahamic religion make the above declarations?
The 4 Noble Truths is a generic problem solving technique.
What can be wrong about that?
Note this;
Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030
Whenever there is a problem in life we apply the 4NT, i.e.
- Identify, recognize and define the problem.
- Identify the origin and root cause of the problem.
- All human-based problems can be resolved
- Herewith the guidelines for the solution.
The above is the generic model and within the sutras many alternative detailed approaches are provided for each of the above main elements.
Note ‘feeling good’ is activated by an independent modular function in the brain.
I agree feeling good is generally related to something positive to survival but in reality
anything of either good or evil can trigger one to feel good.
Note Nero when Rome burnt.
Hitler felt good in killing millions of Jews.
Even pain can trigger feeling good, e.g. the masochistic.
So you have to throw your theory
“Feeling good may, as I continue to emphasize, may only be the indication that everything is working properly.” down the drain.
The basic theory re religion [especially theistic] is this;
Due to an inherent existential crisis, terrible existential psychological pains are generated in the brain/mind.
Religions and its beliefs [an all powerful God exists] trigger the feel good neurons to provide soothing juices that immediately provide immediate relief to the above terrible existential psychological pains.
The approach of the non-theistic religions are different. They do not rely on ‘soothing juices’ generate by faith and beliefs in illusory things. Rather they develop neural modulators [like dams across a violent river] to modulate the primal impulses of the terrible existential forces.
Prism, I think you need to dig a bit deeper into genetic human evolution before you attach ought to the is of biochemistry.
Nero and Hitler are prime examples of well-being within wrong doing. They prove nothing of what your feel good juices are trying to accomplish within a single brain. Your atheism is apparently highly indebted to the theism of fundamentalist Christians.
Evolutionary wise, altruism is the prime example of ought derived from is.
Where did you get this info on neuro-modulation? It seems a bit outdated when applied to ethics in general.
If you have a general fear of death, then an obvious solution is to “invent” an eternal afterlife. That gets rid of the fear. But if the afterlife includes eternal torment in hell, then you introduce a new fear. This basically wrecks your original clever invention.
The religion gives you a set of assumptions and principles which you apply in life. If your religion says that the universe is rational, ordered and knowable, then a pursuit of scientific knowledge is a reasonable activity. If your religion says that the universe is chaotic and unknowable, then you won’t bother pursuing scientific knowledge. Why would you? It’s essentially a waste of time based on your religious beliefs.
Yes, this can happen, but it doesn’t contradict Phyllo’s point about being labeled hypochondriac and/or mentally sick. IN my experience doctors want to categorize. If they cannot find something they know as a disease or condition, they seem reluctant to think it might be a disease or condition they have not encountered or has not been confirmed within current medicine. But even more important, when we are talking about emotional problems, as you were in the previous post, isolating all emotional problems and pain in the individual is pathological, though very common in the current psychiatric/pharmacological model. Right now so many people get their ‘conditions’ treated that the normal person has one or another disorder. Emotions are affected by the environment and the disease model is limited. Yes, some can get helped, but nowadays EVERY problem gets treated as if it is in the body, rather than a response to something outside the body. And this is cutting off a huge feedback about what modern life is like. We just shut it off. You have a mental problem, not ALL OF YOU ARE REACTING TO SOMETHING. This is very dangerous.
And/or they are skeptical about the effects of the treatment itself which is often dangerous.
To be fair, one should not expect medical treatment to be without risks or side-effects.