ding
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?
I think that’s fair.
eternal life is, well, not dying.
Unless you take a more gnostic take on what it means, which actually drives it over towards Buddhism, at least potentially.
But there are things in the Bible, like this, that could be addressing a fear of death. I don’t think he’s off on that one.
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.
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.
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. 
What am I missing here?
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!
Come on, I adressed this:
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.
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 
.
Prismatic,
Which involves?
What is Buddhism-proper? One ideology being inferior to another is a matter of perspective, not fact.
Optimal spirituality without belief in anything, except science?
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?
Buddhism-proper is whatever Prismatic believes about Buddhism. Everything he does not believe about Buddhism is part of Buddhism-improper.
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 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.
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.
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.
And the same goes for Chrisitianity.
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.
And even experiences and pragmatic results.
My argument;
- All humans strive to live, thus to avoid death.
- To avoid death, all humans are imputed with the fear of death subconsciously.
- The subconscious fear of death generate indirect existential pains.
- The assurance of God of the Christian in John 3:16 i.e. guarantee eternal life and effectively remove the indirect existential pains.
- Therefore John 3:16 is linked with the subconscious fear of death.
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.
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,
simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html
This knowledge has been used to learn and improve human behaviors
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.
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.
No, but science is fundamental and it is complimented with Philosophy, with its tools of logic, morality, ethics, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.
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,
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.
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.