The Brain Creates Religion

The Dalai Lama claims to be reincarnated. Correct?

Has scientific analysis shown that reincarnation is what happens after death?

It seems that he is relying on the idea that reincarnation has not been disproved by science. A fuzzy spot. A lot of claims of religions, including Buddhism are in that “we’re not quite sure” fuzzy spot.

Other problems with “scientific analysis” … it’s based on some unproven/un-provable assumptions. If you don’t accept those assumptions then you can reject scientific analysis.
And science can’t be applied to all problems/questions. Some things are beyond scientific analysis.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the history of science and religion in Europe. The church has accepted scientific findings. Science and religion are not incompatible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_a … lic_Church

This is very general. The devil is in the details.

Not all problems can be resolved. This may be due to a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, or a lack of will or the fact that a solution would create another problem.

Note the two main primary motivators of human actions to facilitate survival [evolutionary] are

  1. pain - actions of avoidance or
  2. pleasure - actions of attraction

To ensure survival, the attractive actions are accompanied with ‘good juices’ in the brain to generate pleasure [feel good] to motivate repetitions.

Nature is never perfect, thus to ensure it achieves its ‘purpose’ it rely on large numbers and % to increase it chances of survival. As a result there are defects and exceptions, e.g. synaethesia - cross wirings of the 5 senses.

Whilst pleasure [from feel good juices] is to promote survival, it also has its defects, i.e. pleasure also lead to the problem of addiction which lead to deaths thus contradicting its purpose of survival.
I gave the examples of masochists and others whose pleasure circuit is triggered by immoral acts, e.g. Hitler, Nero and the likes.
The pleasure circuit can artificially triggered by drugs and other chemicals which could end up with good or evil acts.

With the above counter examples, 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.

Neuro-Modulation.
Note research on impulse control.
news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/08/30/ … e-control/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_control_disorder

I suggest you do your own research on this topic.

That is why theists has to believe in an all powerful God [illusory] who can ensure they don’t go to hell as promised.

I agree many scientists in the past and even the present do make reference to God’s creation to initiate their scientific discovery, e.g. Newton.
But my main point is Science is Science as to Art is Art, they are like oil and water. It is the same with Science is not Religion.

Does this statement actually make sense to anyone who reads it???

Nah, Buddhism do not believe in the Hindu concept of reincarnation [transmigration].
Some Buddhists believe is rebirth which is different from reincarnation.

What the Dalai Lama [his Tibetan Buddhist sect] is a human being is a bundle of energy/waves where the waves fully interacted within the universe.
The person continuously emit energy and waves from its body and receives energy from external to its body.
When a person dies, that bundle of waves dissipate to the greater body of energy/waves.

Accordingly, some of these smaller bundle of waves may enter into another human body or self, thus this is a type of reincarnation in the Tibetan Buddhism perspective. This is an empirical possibility and has not been demonstrated to be false via Science.

Btw, that is the Dalai Lama’s belief and I do not agree with it.

I understand Christianity and Islam has been claimed to be involved with Scientific discoveries.
Many religions has been involved in non-religious things like politics, health, economics, etc. but this do not conclude these non-religious things are religious.
My point is Science is Science, Religion is Religion, and in terms of theory and practices they are distinctively different.

We hear it very often, to booster its self-esteem, Muslims will claim Islam has contributed to Science by listing various Muslim scientists of old.
The fact is those were scientists who happened to be Muslims who were scientific inclined and it is not because that the doctrine of Islam directly contributed to Science. For Science to be, there must be a Scientific Framework and System which Islam or Christianity are not.
Since religions are not based on a Scientific Framework and System, ‘Religion’ cannot be ‘Science’.

What is critical is one must have a model to start with, otherwise one will easily get lost.

Note I mentioned,
within the sutras many alternative detailed approaches are provided for each of the above main elements.
This will require one to spent years of studying and practicing utilizing the generic model above.

Yes, not all problems will be resolved but with a model and system, one will understand specifically and objectively where the shortfalls are where one has to look more aggressively for solution or accept them till new knowledge and resources are available.

Example note my problem with how to resolve the terrible evils arising from religions especially Islam.
From the model and system I used, I understand the mechanics and processes of the problem but due to lack of knowledge and resources I am aware the problem cannot be resolved immediate or even the near future but only possible [based on trend] in the further future.

Call it what you want, it’s not justified true belief, is it? So your claim that everything in Buddhism is JTB is refuted.

Don’t change the subject. You asked “Will the representative of any Abrahamic religion make the above declarations?”

And I showed you that Catholicism has done that repeatedly and that they don’t see any problem with scientific discoveries.

There is an omission here.
Generally what is Scientific knowledge is JTB or at least empirically possible in scientific theories and speculations.
Since I have aligned Buddhist theories with Science, everything that is claimed with Buddhist core principles* must be JTB or empirically possible.

  • I stress on core principles because there are some Buddhist sects that deviate from the core principles into weird fantasies.

I don’t think they will voluntarily make such a declaration but were force to do so due to proof and evidences provided.

Note Christians are still fighting against the theory of evolution and others.

I would say most believe in rebirth and a large percentage of these think of it very much like reincarnation. Even some of the masters will avoid weighing in. YOu keep referring to Buddhism, which has many branches, and is practiced in all sorts of ways, but all sorts of people with very different understandings of Buddhism, as it if was a monolithic object. It’s not.

This is considered poor justification. And even by you regarding God.

B

I do not see how anyone can deny that feel good chemicals in the brain are there to stabilize the system whether or not the instability comes from external or internal sources. The problem here is making a fable out of a function. You expect me to research the fable?
BTW, is English your second language? You seem to have difficulty with subject/verb agreement. “Buddhism do not believe”, etc.

If I understand your post, you’re saying that you have created your own version of Buddhism (let’s call it True Buddhism) which excludes everything that you don’t consider JTB. Some Buddhists, and honestly that could be the majority, have other beliefs but these are really weird fantasies and those Buddhists are not True Buddhists.

Is that it? :open_mouth:

I don’t understand what you expect them to do. You want them to make declarations without “proof and evidences”??

The Dalai Lama said “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then …”

He’s not making any declarations without “proof and evidences” either.

The Catholic church does not deny evolution, nor do the majority of Protestant sects.

You’re thinking of Fundamentalist Protestants in the USA and using them as the archetype of all Christians.

Some other view held by scientists about the origins of religion:

  1. Children are predisposed to anthropomorphize the world. These children become adults and continued this in the past.
    sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 103828.htm
  2. Psychoactive plants gave early humans experiences of dead relatives
    singingtotheplants.com/2008/ … in-africa/
    Modern users also have experiences of dead relatives seemingly in another realm, so some scientists believe that use of psychoative substances may actually be the roots of religion
  3. HADD, hypersensitive agency-detecting device - this is similar to one, but comes at it more as an early adult human would find this capacity useful.
    humanreligions.info/hyperact … ction.html

Now as as a theist I do not accept the lack of a deity. But this is in response to the OP’s hypothesis as being the only or even the major hypothesis about the origin’s of religion.

People like Prismatic like to focus on people’s fears as the source of their beliefs. This may well be projection on their part, since they cannot even seem to imagine OTHER hypotheses that are compatible with atheism.

Why?

I think, though I am not sure, that it gives people like Prismatic a sense of superiority. He doesn’t believe in God. He can face the truth. Not only are theists wrong, but they are people driven by their fears. So he is epistemologically superior AND psychologically superior. He might simply not be well read in science. Even so what he is doing is perpetuating not the best atheist JTB’s about why people are religious and one that denigrate most of the people on the planet. Which should be embarrassing.

You’re using JTB as if it is a specific epistemological position. It is more a way of defining knowledge at the meta-level. Different people will have different ideas about what constitutes good justification, sufficient justification, etc.

Empirically possible. What has been considered in science as empirically possible has shifted over time.

In science, for example, it was considered either not possible or unknowable if animals were conscious, had cognitive processes etc. In fact it would fuck up your career to say otherwise. All along ordinary people knew animals has consciousness and science has let go of its bias and confusion on this point.

There are paradigmatic shifts inside science. Empirically possible is very much an unusable term. One can say that something does not seem to fit with current models, but given what was considered not possible within the history of science and then turned out to be possible, your term is useless, though the thinking behind it is unfortunately quite common, even within science where they should know better.

I am aware of the point you are making, i.e. completeness.
I have spent years researching on Buddhism and strive to have a complete coverage of the whole subject of Buddhism.
The main schools of Buddhism are Theravada, Mahayanna and Vajrayana surrounding by its respective sects to extreme cults. In addition the above are also different in different locations and group of people. I have read all the main sutras of the 3 main schools of Buddhism.
In my folder ‘Buddhism’ I have 3000+ files in 284 folders where I strive to cover and be as complete as possible on the subject of Buddhism.
If you can show any thing of what I have not covered, then I will read it up.

Regardless of whatever the variations and forms, what hold for Buddhism are its core principles. e.g. impermanence, anatta, dependent origination, and others.

The above is my interpretation of what I have read from the Dalai Lama’s books.
There is no way the Dalai Lama as a high ranked Buddhist will believe in an independent soul that transmigrates to another new body.

From what I read, I don’t think the Dalai Lama personally believe in his school’s practice of finding the next Dalai Lama via the concept of remnants of vibrations appearing in another child. This is merely a cultural practice to retain continuity*. This is why the current Dalai Lama mentioned he could the last Dalai Lama of his school and ‘he’ will not reappear in another child.

  • In Japanese Buddhism, continuity is maintained by passing the chief’s baton to the son.

I am from the East and English is not my second language, thus my grammar competence is not habituated.

Note you claimed,
“Feeling good may, as I continue to emphasize, may only be the indication that everything is working properly.”
I am giving you the exceptions, i.e. feeling good do not necessary indicate that everything is working properly.
What is wrong with that when I have given you the evidences?

My thesis is this;

  1. All humans has an inherent potential to suffer terrible existential brain pains.
  2. The majority suffer those pains mainly subliminally and also explicit.
  3. Being human, people are driven to seek solutions.
  4. The brain creates religions [God & no-god] as a solution to relieve those existential brain pains.

God is conjured by theists as a basis for their religion to relieve the brain pains.
It is not that God pre-existed and therefore humans rushed to believe in it.
It is because humans are predisposed to suffer an unavoidable existential pains.
Therefore humans strived and their brain create religions which produce feel good juices to relieve those existential pains.

Nope I have not created my own version of Buddhism.
My concept of true Buddhism is abstracted from those propounded by the various ‘PhD’ level Buddhist teachings and their teachers. I agree with their views which is in alignment with the core principles of Buddhism as introduced by the Buddha.

If you do a survey, you will note the majority of lay-Buddhists everywhere pray and idolize the statues of the Buddha, the larger the better, pray with joss-sticks, made offerings to the statues, etc. Some monks practice asceticism. The above are not recommended [but not prohibited] by the Buddha.

As such many Buddhists [lay and even monks] believe in many views that are not JTB which are not acceptable within Buddhism-proper.
Btw, no one is complaining on this within the Buddhist community, but those in the know, hope these Buddhists will progress from the current base. Some did progress and some don’t.

Will the Pope say something like;

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Christianity to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

Then we will have a large number of non-theists [especially] challenging the Pope on the claims in Genesis and all over the Bible with Scientific references and the Pope then will have to eat his words.

Point is the Pope and other theistic religious leaders will not dare to make the declaration like what the Dalai Lama did because they know their doctrines [faith based] are very flimsy. So why invite trouble for the religion.

Nope I did not claim the OP is the only or main basis hypothesis about the origin’s of religion.
The main hypothesis as I have stated within this thread is the existential psychological factors. This is a very complex issue.

Note my main reason for the critique of theism is led from real experiences and evidence, e.g. this stats restricted to incidents that involve death;

There are loads of other evil acts committed by SOME [significant quantum potential of >300 million] theists who are evil prone.

Personally I am [all almost every human is] seriously effected by the terrors spread by these ‘SOME’ theists.

As a concerned citizen of humanity, I have to find and contribute views of solutions to the above for the sake of humanity in the future [as impossible for immediate effective solution at present].

Theists are very selfish in clinging to theism for their own psychological security and comfort thus compelled to turning a blind eye to research and understand the evils related to theism are from theism itself.

He won’t eat anything. The Catholic Church has never interpreted scriptures literally. There are no scientific claims in Genesis to argue about.
All over the Bible? Like what? That the Earth is flat? That the sun revolves around Earth?

Nonsense.