What I would like to explore with Buddhists is the distinction I make between the either/or Self rooted in human biology, demographics and empirical fact, and the extent that, in the is/ought world, “I” construe human identity not as illusive so much as elusive – an existential contraption rooted in dasein from the cradle to the grave. And then the part about after “I” die.
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.
Who said anything about believing?
Don’t we all? In other words, believe what we do – here and now – about this and everything else? Instead, my focus is more on the extent to which we are able to demonstrate to others that they are obligated to believe what we do. If they wish to be thought of as a rational human being.
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.
What are you aiming at here? Are you simply asking me to demonstrate the reasoning behind my Biddhist convictions, or are you asking what I would do if confronted with
Again, I’m asking anyone to demonstrate that what they claim is true, all rational men and women are in turn obligated to believe. There are scientific claims and religious claims. What’s the difference between them? Well, scientific claims revolve mostly around the either/or world in which objective answers seem within reach. Depending how far out into the really, really big or far down into the really, really small you go. But what of religious claims? Up there or down here, what of demonstrations regarding claims pertaining to “enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, Nirvana, Brahman, the Four Noble Truths etc.”?
Or, sure, we can just agree to disagree regarding what that in itself means.
Then why don’t we do that–agree to disagree.
Works for me.
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…
You can conclude what you want (and you will), but when I read between the lines of your statement, I read that you’re expecting dogmatism, not just objective sounding statements. If you inquire into the beliefs and values of any religion, what else would you expect but statements delineating what they believe and value structured in the usual objective grammar. That’s more or less the default structure of language. But when you say “religions down through the ages insist” it’s the insist part that I read as “dogmatically insist” and I’m not sure you can say that about every religion on that list.
First, we’ll need a context. “Dogmatism” or “just objective sounding statements” about what? Values revolving around what actual behaviors in what set of circumstances in which enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are broached, examined and assessed.
To what extent can the defense of them through the use of language be linked to actual experiences that substantiate claims? From any of them on the list.
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.
Quite possibly. But connecting the dots is one thing. Insisting is another.
“I” try to make it clear that my own assessments of these relationships are no less existential contraptions rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein. I would never insist that others are obligated to think the same. Unless, of course, I have new experiences, new relationships or access to new ideas which prompts me to insist on it.
But then there is still the problem of demonstrating this new belief.
Show me.
Show you what?
That, in regard to the main components of Buddhism, one is able to demonstrate to me that all enlightened men and women are obligated to become Buddhists.
Again, for all practical purposes, what else is there?