I have no idea what this point has to do with my point above.
Sure, if some can convince themselves that “Everything is an illusion. The self is no exception. The self is an invention clung to by desire as a means to attain satisfaction”, what can I say. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.
Really? You're just gonna leave it at that? I thought your goal was to probe until you could show that all my claims are vaccuous, or that you've fragmented my 'I'? I thought for sure you'd ask for a demonstration that all rational men and women are obligated to agree with.
From my point of view, there are either material, empirical, biological, demographic etc., aspects of the self that we can demonstrate to be anything but illusions, or, instead, everything is an illusion. The either/or world claims are not deemed by me to be vacuous. I am not fractured and fragmented in regard to human interactions in the either/or world. Sure, I may be misunderstanding what is true, but what is true is there to be demonstrated. Or, rather, demonstrated to the best of our ability given all that we don’t know about existence itself.
Either that or I am misunderstanding you.
But: if you choose to interact with folks of other religious denominations and atheists and the nihilist who own and operate around the globe that we all reside on, be prepared to have your own sense of identity challenged. See if there are not some very, very real aspects of the self that are challenged by others.
For example, others might insist that you actually demonstrate to them what your own morality “stems from”. In regard to, say, the very real parameters of abortion, or animal rights, or gender roles, or sexual behaviors. What are you going to do, plead “illusion” when they challenge the things you say and do?
Well, that's more like it. So speaking as the Buddhist that I'm not, I would argue that the truth as I see it is the truth regardless of what happens when I confront other people who disagree with me and insist that I demonstrate to them the truth of my convictions.
Yep, that’s how the moral and political and spiritual objectivists see it. The truth is demonstrated by them merely in the act of believing it. Others are either willing to become “one of us” and believe it too or they are wrong.
Just like science remains true even when the scientist is confronted by religious zealots who insist that he's wrong or that he prove to them the claims of his science. If it's a question of how I would convince them if pressed to do so, I *might* plead illusion if I thought that might help, but I can only go so far. Some people just will not be convinced. In that case, I would try to avoid the subject with them, and (if they really do "insist") maybe avoid them. The answer to your question really depends on to what extent they insist on involving themselves in my life? Are you suggesting an all-or-nothing scenario? Like I prove my position to them or die?
Science deals with claims that are either able to be demonstrated or they are not. Lots and lots of claims a 100 years ago may have been scoffed at but they have since been reconfigured into the astounding technologies and engineering feats that today we take for granted. On the other hand, with claims made regarding enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, Nirvana, Brahman, the Four Noble Truths etc., where is the evidence demonstrating the whole truth about them? After all, Buddha died 2,600 years ago.
This is just intellectual gibberish to me, the sort of religious mumbo jumbo that the faithful [Buddhist or otherwise] are able to think themselves into believing but are entirely impotent in regard to substantiating. Again, from my perspective, the whole point is not in what you believe but that you believe it. It is the belief itself that instills the equanimity enabling one to deal with a world that is ever and always bursting at the seams with so many terrible things. And that’s before oblivion.
Then I'm not sure what you want me to say. You asked me a series of questions, I gave my answers. If it comes across to you as "intellectual gibberish" or "religious mumbo jumbo", I'm afraid I cannot help you. Is that the end of the line, or did you want to try again rephrasing your request?
Well, I’ve made it abundantly clear regarding the things that I would like to see substantiated by those who embrace religion as the foundation into which they anchor their self. Either what they believe “in their head” can be substantiated such that others are able – even obligated – to believe it in turn or it can’t.
Or, sure, we can just agree to disagree regarding what that in itself means.
Start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … ock%2Dwise
Even in regard to Buddhism itself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism
I think you took my question a little too literally. The question is: how can you [i]know[/i] that literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of religions down through the ages insist that only their own take on morality here and now and immortality there and then reflect the real thing? I mean, to the extent that you seriously question my response: possibly.
What can I say? I can spend the rest of my life going down this list from wikipedia and, one by one, concluding that what they preach about morality and immortality is thought to be the One True Path, or I can take a subjective leap and conclude that most will believe this based on my own actual experiences with religious denominations over the years.
Or, as you note…
I'm sure the sheer number of religions that have seen the light of day throughout literally all of history must be at least in the thousands, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds which have insisted that they've got morality and the afterlife bang on with dogmatic certainty seems a fair bet...
But…
...but reading between the line of your statement, I infer that you mean to say "the vast majority". 300 religions out of a thousand would count as "hundreds and hundreds and hundreds" technically, but I don't think you mean it that literally. We know a lot of religions in the modern world, and a lot have survived in the history books to be added to the count, and there is definitely a noticeable portion of them that take stances on morality and the afterlife with a dogmatic arrogance, but I'm going to hold back on saying that I [i]know[/i] with certainty that almost all of them are like that. So... possibly.
Not at all clear where you are going with this.
For me the assumption is that down through the ages, religions are invented in order to connect the existential dots between the life that one lives here and now and the life that one wants to go on living there and then. One or another rendition of morality, then one or another rendition of immortality.
This and the part probed by folks like Marx: the politics of religion.
But ever and always [for me] there’s that gap between what someone believes about this in their head and what they can actually demonstrate that I should believe too.
Show me.