What's the place of religion in ethical debate?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Eudaimon
 
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:31 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;79054 wrote:
To be a Catholic or Orthodox is to be a member of those particular institutions.

The crux of the matter is whether or not Catholics and Orthodox individuals can have a variety of opinions. Yes, they can have a variety of opinions, and, yes, they can have differing views on ethics. These are facts which are evident to anyone who cares to investigate the literature associated with these groups.

For example, some Catholic priests supported the American involvement in Vietnam, others opposed this: both took their positions due to ethical concerns.

So "to be a Catholic or Orthodox is to be a member of those particular institutions". Then my next question is what is to be a member of those institutions? Surely it is not like having member's card. I thought that to be a catholic or an orthodox means to believe that their hierarchy is set by God and therefore the pope or patriarch cannot mistake since he has the holy ghost within him which was handed down to him through generations of priests and ultimately comes from apostles which received that on the pentecost. Therefore if one disagree with what is said in church he disagrees with God and his calling himself catholic/orthodox is just a nonsense like a son of barren mother.

Didymos Thomas;79054 wrote:
That's beside the point: Hitler was uninterested in ethical opinions contrary to his own.

O madonna! Didn't he have debates with his opponents? How could he win the elections without rejecting their views?
Surely, according to thy view he was a masohist who had no concerns about his own life...

Didymos Thomas;79054 wrote:
If someone supports violence in a particular situation, and is willing to reconsider this ethical position by hearing and duely considering the opinions of others, then they are capable of contributing to an ethical discussion. I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated: either someone is willing or is unwilling to consider different perspectives. Those who are unwilling have no place at the table, those who are willing do have a place at the table.

And thou makest that discussion impossible. If someone is willing to change his own views, he is almost the perfect man because he understands that happiness cannot be attained without unconditioned Truth. There are very, very few people in the world who are willing to do that, who recognise that. And those who take part in discussions are willing almost always not to find truth but to reject opponent so as to satisfy their vanity or to gain votes. And the main point here is to make people understand the urgency of unbiased hearing. Yet thou wantest to speak to those only who are capable to find Truth even without thy advice.

Didymos Thomas;79054 wrote:
Again, I think you misunderstand evolution. I'm certainly no expert, but I have never heard an expert in the field give such an interpretation of evolutionary theory. If you know of such an expert, I would be very interested in hearing what they have to say.

I am that expert and I am at your service.Smile Why must we always seek for a specialist and don't want to enquire in the matter ourselves? Find what is here contradictive and then say, there is no need to search for other expert.
We should not rely on so-called experts that much, since their opinion is also conditioned. How canst thou possibly imagine an expert who gets money from government and says that real necessities of a man are antisocial, and the obedience to laws is caused by nothing but the fear of punishment and Pavlovian conditioning which happens in early childhood?

Didymos Thomas;79054 wrote:
Freud was also willing to consider views other than his own opinions. Thus, he would be able to actively contribute to an ethical discussion.

Well, I have also something to oppose to this, recalling his break with all who refused to acknowledge his interpretation of the role of symbol in psychoanalysis...


Didymos Thomas;79054 wrote:
Which is fine, however, according to Karen Armstrong's biography of the Buddha, when Gautama set out after enlightenment, he was immediately recognized as being enlightened - thus, he was called the Buddha.

The particular instance you sight deals with followers who, after the Buddha was already recognized as the Awakened One, had the thought to call him by his name.

Well, that was like they did not want to greet him at all but could not help that. Now, let us imagine by what criterion they realised that he was "enlightened". Where does that criterion come from?

Didymos Thomas;79054 wrote:
Because they are not relevant. You asked those two questions in case your assumption about the purpose of spiritual practice was accurate; I disagreed with your assumption regarding spiritual practice.

Alright. Then, I should ask: what means to be better? To advance in a certain religious path, that is to correspond with a certain pattern as much as possible? How do I know that this is "objectively better"?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 03:49 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;79070 wrote:
So "to be a Catholic or Orthodox is to be a member of those particular institutions". Then my next question is what is to be a member of those institutions? Surely it is not like having member's card. I thought that to be a catholic or an orthodox means to believe that their hierarchy is set by God and therefore the pope or patriarch cannot mistake since he has the holy ghost within him which was handed down to him through generations of priests and ultimately comes from apostles which received that on the pentecost. Therefore if one disagree with what is said in church he disagrees with God and his calling himself catholic/orthodox is just a nonsense like a son of barren mother.


Yeah, membership card, figuratively speaking. I'd have to double check, but my guess is that membership is determined by a combination of baptism and confirmation.

Eudaimon;79070 wrote:
O madonna! Didn't he have debates with his opponents? How could he win the elections without rejecting their views?
Surely, according to thy view he was a masohist who had no concerns about his own life...


Hitler did not win popular vote elections: he won elections in the Reichstag.

Eudaimon;79070 wrote:
And thou makest that discussion impossible. If someone is willing to change his own views, he is almost the perfect man because he understands that happiness cannot be attained without unconditioned Truth. There are very, very few people in the world who are willing to do that, who recognise that. And those who take part in discussions are willing almost always not to find truth but to reject opponent so as to satisfy their vanity or to gain votes. And the main point here is to make people understand the urgency of unbiased hearing. Yet thou wantest to speak to those only who are capable to find Truth even without thy advice.


I really have no idea what you are saying here.

Eudaimon;79070 wrote:
I am that expert and I am at your service.Smile Why must we always seek for a specialist and don't want to enquire in the matter ourselves? Find what is here contradictive and then say, there is no need to search for other expert.


Really? You are an expert in evolutionary biology?

We seek out the opinion of experts because they devote their lives to a particular study, thus, their perspectives are better informed than the perspectives of lay people, like myself. When the issue concerns something as complicated as evolutionary biology, expert opinion is exceedingly valuable.

Eudaimon;79070 wrote:
Well, I have also something to oppose to this, recalling his break with all who refused to acknowledge his interpretation of the role of symbol in psychoanalysis...


We are talking about ethics, not dream interpretation. Even still, Freud disagreed with people regarding the interpretation of symbols after extensively considering their perspectives..

Eudaimon;79070 wrote:
Well, that was like they did not want to greet him at all but could not help that. Now, let us imagine by what criterion they realised that he was "enlightened". Where does that criterion come from?


By the same criterion that we realize a plate is hot to the touch, or that ice is cool.

Eudaimon;79070 wrote:
Alright. Then, I should ask: what means to be better? To advance in a certain religious path, that is to correspond with a certain pattern as much as possible? How do I know that this is "objectively better"?


Don't ask me, ask a Buddhist monk.

From what I have read, being a better person typically deals with being more kind and compassionate, more understanding, and so forth, but there is a great deal to Buddhist thought. You'd have to ask an expert for a detailed account of everything involved.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 02:32 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;79098 wrote:
Yeah, membership card, figuratively speaking. I'd have to double check, but my guess is that membership is determined by a combination of baptism and confirmation.

Were it so, no one would ever be excommunicated from church. It amuses me to here that since I have gone through baptism and confirmation (which is, if I am not mistaking, absent in both Catholicsm and orthodoxy), I can say whatever I like, even reject the hierarchy and still remain in church.


Didymos Thomas;79098 wrote:
Hitler did not win popular vote elections: he won elections in the Reichstag.

So as to win those election he had to consider the views of the opponents and find contradictions within them.

Didymos Thomas;79098 wrote:
I really have no idea what you are saying here.

Thou art here almost two years, if I am not mistaking. Were there many people whose only purpose was to find truth, and not to satisfy their vanity?


Didymos Thomas;79098 wrote:
Really? You are an expert in evolutionary biology?

We seek out the opinion of experts because they devote their lives to a particular study, thus, their perspectives are better informed than the perspectives of lay people, like myself. When the issue concerns something as complicated as evolutionary biology, expert opinion is exceedingly valuable.

Look here, man, it's just so easy to understand. Animals are fighting for food, female, place in the sun, right? That is their life is continuation of their own physical existence and existence of their kin. They don't know what is compassion, non-violence, celebacy etc. And if we are animals, all we need is the same, thou followst that? But resourses are limited, therefore we have to agree not to kill one another and respect rights on females. That is to say desire to have better food, better sexual partner is present yet it is suppressed by violence from society, do I not contradict myself? That is the thing we call Pavlovian conditioning. For example, a child which is not yet conditioned want only pleasure: to suck breast, to be safe etc. For it the interests of others (for example that his mother want to sleep) does not play any role. Even some time after they share their sweets with siblings very unwillingly and mother has to reproach or punish them so as to condition them to do that. This conditioning, according to evolutional theory, causes all our moral taboos. Why dost thou not go naked? Because thy parents, environment conditioned thee that it is bad, although we feel that now in summer it would be not bad. Thus without violence, according to evolutional theory, there is no morality, since all we want is pleasure which leads to continuation of physical existence of these protein bodies.

Didymos Thomas;79098 wrote:
We are talking about ethics, not dream interpretation. Even still, Freud disagreed with people regarding the interpretation of symbols after extensively considering their perspectives..

He considered their arguments and rejected them. They considered his arguments and rejected them. Do we have two truth in the world? Is there place for discussion at all?


Didymos Thomas;79098 wrote:
By the same criterion that we realize a plate is hot to the touch, or that ice is cool.

If I don't what is to be cool and have to deal with ice for the first time I don't know that it is cool but have only a feeling of something. Then someone comes and explains that this means to be cool. In case with Gautama, I may feel that he is very charismatic, emit positive emotions, but to know that he is buddha I can't, unless someone tells me what means to be buddha. Thus the next question is: wherefrom that expert knows that.

Didymos Thomas;79098 wrote:
Don't ask me, ask a Buddhist monk.

From what I have read, being a better person typically deals with being more kind and compassionate, more understanding, and so forth, but there is a great deal to Buddhist thought. You'd have to ask an expert for a detailed account of everything involved.

Hey, friend, is thy role here is to send every one to the Lord Expert?Smile
We are discussing what means to be objectively better, not according to buddhism or any religion. To be better is to to be happier, right? Therefore, we need to enquire in what leads to happiness and what are the obstacles, rifgt?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 02:35 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;79197 wrote:
Were it so, no one would ever be excommunicated from church. It amuses me to here that since I have gone through baptism and confirmation (which is, if I am not mistaking, absent in both Catholicsm and orthodoxy), I can say whatever I like, even reject the hierarchy and still remain in church.


I do not know the particular rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but baptism and confirmation are part of the Roman Catholic Church's rites.

Again, to be a Catholic is to be a member of that church. I do not know exactly all of the particulars involved. I am sure you can find this information with a google search.

The issue was whether or not Catholics can have differing opinions. As a matter of fact, they can disagree amongst themselves. This is not uncommon. Theologians debate.

Eudaimon;79197 wrote:
So as to win those election he had to consider the views of the opponents and find contradictions within them.


No, he had to strong arm opposition with his personal military and blame the Jews for Germany's economic woes.

Eudaimon;79197 wrote:
Thou art here almost two years, if I am not mistaking. Were there many people whose only purpose was to find truth, and not to satisfy their vanity?


Few and far between, but these people do exist.

Eudaimon;79197 wrote:
Look here, man, it's just so easy to understand. Animals are fighting for food, female, place in the sun, right? That is their life is continuation of their own physical existence and existence of their kin. They don't know what is compassion, non-violence, celebacy etc. And if we are animals, all we need is the same, thou followst that? But resourses are limited, therefore we have to agree not to kill one another and respect rights on females. That is to say desire to have better food, better sexual partner is present yet it is suppressed by violence from society, do I not contradict myself? That is the thing we call Pavlovian conditioning. For example, a child which is not yet conditioned want only pleasure: to suck breast, to be safe etc. For it the interests of others (for example that his mother want to sleep) does not play any role. Even some time after they share their sweets with siblings very unwillingly and mother has to reproach or punish them so as to condition them to do that. This conditioning, according to evolutional theory, causes all our moral taboos. Why dost thou not go naked? Because thy parents, environment conditioned thee that it is bad, although we feel that now in summer it would be not bad. Thus without violence, according to evolutional theory, there is no morality, since all we want is pleasure which leads to continuation of physical existence of these protein bodies.


This is quite a jumble of theories, most of it being psychology and not evolutionary biology.

Eudaimon;79197 wrote:
He considered their arguments and rejected them. They considered his arguments and rejected them. Do we have two truth in the world? Is there place for discussion at all?


Obviously there is a place for discussion as society has undergone moral improvements based on moral discussions - the moral discussion of slavery being a great example.

The number and nature of the truth(s) is exactly what constitutes an ethical discussion.

Eudaimon;79197 wrote:
If I don't what is to be cool and have to deal with ice for the first time I don't know that it is cool but have only a feeling of something. Then someone comes and explains that this means to be cool. In case with Gautama, I may feel that he is very charismatic, emit positive emotions, but to know that he is buddha I can't, unless someone tells me what means to be buddha. Thus the next question is: wherefrom that expert knows that.


Words have meanings, you know? Buddhahood, the term, means to be perfectly enlightened. You might go to a dictionary, or in the case of Indians at the time, the classical literature of that continent.

Eudaimon;79197 wrote:
Hey, friend, is thy role here is to send every one to the Lord Expert?Smile


Depends upon the question.

Eudaimon;79197 wrote:
We are discussing what means to be objectively better, not according to buddhism or any religion. To be better is to to be happier, right? Therefore, we need to enquire in what leads to happiness and what are the obstacles, rifgt?


I thought we were talking about Buddhism, with respect to enlightenment and spiritual practice, what those things mean.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:24 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;79494 wrote:
The issue was whether or not Catholics can have differing opinions. As a matter of fact, they can disagree amongst themselves. This is not uncommon. Theologians debate.

They can have different opinions of things which were not dogmatised. That is to say one cannot be Catholic and reject trinity. So, discussions may take place but the things they can discuss are limited.
Again, as to what means to be catholic, I think it is ridiculous to say that catholic is one who underwent baptism and confirmation. So those who became atheists when grew up are catholics nevertheless? Is it possible to say: "I am catholic (as thou determinedst that) -- I don't believe in God?"


Didymos Thomas;79494 wrote:
No, he had to strong arm opposition with his personal military and blame the Jews for Germany's economic woes.

Hmm... My textbook on history says he won democratic elections in Reichstag. Therefore, he had to deal with other people's opinions at that time.

Didymos Thomas;79494 wrote:
Few and far between, but these people do exist.

Agree, but in life we need deal with the majority, therefore we should try to convey truth to everyone and have discussion with everybody if he wants to.

Didymos Thomas;79494 wrote:
This is quite a jumble of theories, most of it being psychology and not evolutionary biology.

Does it matter? The question is whether or not such a view must be present at discussion. Does it not reject ethics as thou hast said?


Didymos Thomas;79494 wrote:
Obviously there is a place for discussion as society has undergone moral improvements based on moral discussions - the moral discussion of slavery being a great example.

The number and nature of the truth(s) is exactly what constitutes an ethical discussion.

Well, but it seems to me that this not our question. I asked whether a man like Freud should be present even though he clung to his system. I think he should if not to brought over then to show others groundlessness of their views so that they may not have hidden adherents.
I don't think that the number of truths constitutes ethical discussion. Rather I should say the number of opinions=delusions concerning truth constitutes it.

Didymos Thomas;79494 wrote:
Words have meanings, you know? Buddhahood, the term, means to be perfectly enlightened. You might go to a dictionary, or in the case of Indians at the time, the classical literature of that continent.

Words have meaning. O.K. Hast thou never heard that people cannot give name to the feelings they have. For example, they may feel something towards a representative of opposite gender and call that "love" which may be not love at all but rather a desire to have sexual intercourse or spend time together and so on, and so forth. It is somewhat easier to explain another man what is ice than explain what means to be in love or to be happy -- the things which took place inwardly.
Now, the term "Buddhahood" may mean whatever its author put in it, right? What dost thou think of me? Am I buddha? Or fool? Thy conclusion is based on the idea thou hast of how a buddha or a fool must express himself. But the things thou perceive are all superficial: I may pretend that I am quiet whereas I am angry in truth, that I am generous whereas I am greedy etc. So thy opinion of me may be not true. Therefore to speak of someone/oneself he is "that" is ignorant. Speak truth and I shall see that, all the other things are meaningless and harmful.

Didymos Thomas;79494 wrote:
I thought we were talking about Buddhism, with respect to enlightenment and spiritual practice, what those things mean.

No. We were talking about what means to be religious and whether or not one cease to be religious when cares for his life. Thou gavest definition. I set my questions which thou didst not answer.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 02:00 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;79786 wrote:

Again, as to what means to be catholic, I think it is ridiculous to say that catholic is one who underwent baptism and confirmation. So those who became atheists when grew up are catholics nevertheless? Is it possible to say: "I am catholic (as thou determinedst that) -- I don't believe in God?"


Except that I never said that there was only Baptism and Confirmation. Sheesh.

Eudaimon;79786 wrote:
Hmm... My textbook on history says he won democratic elections in Reichstag. Therefore, he had to deal with other people's opinions at that time.


Elections in the Reichstag. Not popular elections among the people, ie, democratic elections.

Eudaimon;79786 wrote:
Agree, but in life we need deal with the majority, therefore we should try to convey truth to everyone and have discussion with everybody if he wants to.


Explain to me what a person could contribute to an ethical conversation if that same person has nothing to contribute to an ethical conversation? I am not making a complicated claim here.

Eudaimon;79786 wrote:
Does it matter? The question is whether or not such a view must be present at discussion. Does it not reject ethics as thou hast said?


Evolutionary theory does not reject ethics. Evolutionary theory explains the origin of species. Ethics deals with how and when a person should act, not how humans evolve. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Eudaimon;79786 wrote:
Well, but it seems to me that this not our question. I asked whether a man like Freud should be present even though he clung to his system. I think he should if not to brought over then to show others groundlessness of their views so that they may not have hidden adherents.


And I said a person like Freud should be admitted to the discussion.

Eudaimon;79786 wrote:
Words have meaning. O.K. Hast thou never heard that people cannot give name to the feelings they have.


And what does this have to do with the meaning of the term "Buddha"? Buddha has a deinition - you can go look it up if you do not understand the definition of the word.

Eudaimon;79786 wrote:
Now, the term "Buddhahood" may mean whatever its author put in it, right?


Only if the author has no interest in expressing a coherent though.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 12:37 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;79845 wrote:
Except that I never said that there was only Baptism and Confirmation. Sheesh.

What else?


Didymos Thomas;79845 wrote:
Elections in the Reichstag. Not popular elections among the people, ie, democratic elections.

What is the differemce?

Didymos Thomas;79845 wrote:
Explain to me what a person could contribute to an ethical conversation if that same person has nothing to contribute to an ethical conversation? I am not making a complicated claim here.

Rejecting his views, showing their incosistence we can make clear truth if not for the person, then for his supporters. I think this has value.

Didymos Thomas;79845 wrote:
Evolutionary theory does not reject ethics. Evolutionary theory explains the origin of species. Ethics deals with how and when a person should act, not how humans evolve. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Does the things I've told thee not reject ethics? I think that if pleasure is the only good, then we should do things which cannot be called moral. I can't see thy point. Dost thou mean that evolutionary theory and psychology that consider man as being animal doesn't imply that pleasure is only good?


Didymos Thomas;79845 wrote:
And I said a person like Freud should be admitted to the discussion.

Well, a person who considers the words of others and rejects them should be admitted even if he can't show others inconsistence of their views. That sounds strange.
I think that thou hast somewhat twisted understanding of how consideration and understanding come into being. Allow me to say some words about myself. Until 16 years I was an atheist and I had never wanted to consider religious view, I hated that. Then after reading some books I started thinking I believed in God. I don't know what was the cause for it: may be the fear of death, there are million reasons I think. This belief made me very sceptical concerning this world, materialistic civilisation etc. So, I felt a constant struggle within myself and against the world. But I continued reading and thinking though. I read some materialists, immoralists etc. and I must say that I naturally was biased against them because they tried to destroy that ground whereon my whole life, my world view were built. The point is, however that I was biased. But the seeds of doubt were sown in my soul and however I struggled against them protecting my security, they gave sprouts. So now I let go all conceptions and opinions both "religious" and materialistic. But why I am saying that? The truth I want to convey thee is that understanding comes without an effort, despite an effort. There is no need in will towards that. This is the nature of truth, I deem, that it comes despite all obstacles, opinions built against that. There is some part in soul which is impossible to deceive and it will struggle against false opinions until victory or death of that individual. Therefore, to me it is indifferent with whom I am having discussion because I am sowing the seeds of truth despite their will.

Didymos Thomas;79845 wrote:
And what does this have to do with the meaning of the term "Buddha"? Buddha has a deinition - you can go look it up if you do not understand the definition of the word.

"What is love, what is love, what is love? Is it love, is it love, is it love?", a song. Well, so as to define love we must look up in dictionary. My Collins says:
6) a) an intense emotion of affection, warmth, fondness, and regard towards a person or thing b) (as modifier) love song love story
7) a deep feeling of sexual attraction and desire
8) wholehearted liking for or pleasure in something
Art thou satisfied with such a definition and ready to propose it to a person who is asking what it is?
Buddha means one who attained Nirvana, now nirvana means: "Buddhism, Hinduism: final release from the cycle of reincarnation attained by extinction of all desires and individual existence, culminating (in Buddhism) in absolute blessedness, or (in Hinduism) in absorption into Brahman." So for others it is impossible to know whether or not one is in that state
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 01:24 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;79947 wrote:
What else?


Why are you asking me the particular requirements of being Catholic? I am not Catholic: if you are interested, go ask one. Or look it up. What I do know is that the Church has certain requirements for membership, and that one is a Catholic if those requirements are met.

Eudaimon;79947 wrote:
What is the differemce?


The Reichstag was the general assembly in Germany, as opposed to the voting population of Germany.

Eudaimon;79947 wrote:
Rejecting his views, showing their incosistence we can make clear truth if not for the person, then for his supporters. I think this has value.


Sure - but the person in question, who has nothing to contribute, need not be present for his views to be shown false. For example: Hitler need not be in the room in order for us to explain why his moral notions are immoral.

Eudaimon;79947 wrote:
Does the things I've told thee not reject ethics?


What you described was not evolutionary biology.

Eudaimon;79947 wrote:
I think that if pleasure is the only good, then we should do things which cannot be called moral. I can't see thy point. Dost thou mean that evolutionary theory and psychology that consider man as being animal doesn't imply that pleasure is only good?


Evolutionary theory makes no claim regarding what is the good for man.

Nor does psychology make any such claim as the good for man. That's not what psychology is about, as I understand it.

Eudaimon;79947 wrote:
Well, a person who considers the words of others and rejects them should be admitted even if he can't show others inconsistence of their views. That sounds strange.


Maybe it is strange, but that's not what I said.

Eudaimon;79947 wrote:
Art thou satisfied with such a definition and ready to propose it to a person who is asking what it is?


The definition of love has nothing to do with the definition of "buddha".

Eudaimon;79947 wrote:
So for others it is impossible to know whether or not one is in that state


Except that you provide nothing to support this assertion. You can go read the Buddhist literature if you like: there stands a long tradition in Buddhism of people being able to recognize their teachers and enlightened beings. This begins with the historic Shakyamuni Buddha.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 11:23 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;80033 wrote:
Why are you asking me the particular requirements of being Catholic? I am not Catholic: if you are interested, go ask one. Or look it up. What I do know is that the Church has certain requirements for membership, and that one is a Catholic if those requirements are met.

It seems to me that I shown thee that requirements.



Didymos Thomas;80033 wrote:
The Reichstag was the general assembly in Germany, as opposed to the voting population of Germany.

I can't see thy point. He won elections in Reichstag, right? Because his arguments were more convincing to others than those of other parties, right? Therefore, he had to met some objections. Therefore, he was able to debate.


Didymos Thomas;80033 wrote:
Sure - but the person in question, who has nothing to contribute, need not be present for his views to be shown false. For example: Hitler need not be in the room in order for us to explain why his moral notions are immoral.

How dost thou know what are his genuine ideas? Before death he said he had always wanted peace... I think that it is only person who may convey what he thinks. Therefore we cannot make judgement in absence of the accused. By the way in the S.U. they also critisised religion without debates with religious people making stress that religion is nothing but a set of superstitions. The same, probably, is being done with Hitler.


Didymos Thomas;80033 wrote:
Evolutionary theory makes no claim regarding what is the good for man.

Nor does psychology make any such claim as the good for man. That's not what psychology is about, as I understand it.

And it also doesn't make any claim regarding free will, religion etc.? I'd recommend thee to read Freud a little and that will probably correct thine opinion.


Didymos Thomas;80033 wrote:
Maybe it is strange, but that's not what I said.

So what didst thou said exactly? There must be present only people who are ready to change their minds, right? Therefore if someone proposes a correct idea everyone must agree with that. Therefore, how can there be variety of views?

Didymos Thomas;80033 wrote:
Except that you provide nothing to support this assertion. You can go read the Buddhist literature if you like: there stands a long tradition in Buddhism of people being able to recognize their teachers and enlightened beings. This begins with the historic Shakyamuni Buddha.

I know that enlightened zen masters are not enlightened for theravadins. Theravada's arhatship is not what adherents of mahayana want. Therefore, one is buddha in one tradition and not buddha in another. Therefore, their understanding has nothing to do with truth.
Some of zen masters were accused of sexual harrasment in the U.S. But they were recognised as enlightened...
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 11:51 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;80119 wrote:
It seems to me that I shown thee that requirements.


You have yet to cite Catholic dogma regarding membership in that organization. Instead you provided unfounded speculation.

Eudaimon;80119 wrote:
I can't see thy point. He won elections in Reichstag, right? Because his arguments were more convincing to others than those of other parties, right? Therefore, he had to met some objections. Therefore, he was able to debate.


No. Hitler won elections because he had a personal army that persecuted those who opposed him.

Eudaimon;80119 wrote:
How dost thou know what are his genuine ideas? Before death he said he had always wanted peace... I think that it is only person who may convey what he thinks. Therefore we cannot make judgement in absence of the accused. By the way in the S.U. they also critisised religion without debates with religious people making stress that religion is nothing but a set of superstitions. The same, probably, is being done with Hitler.


To argue that Hitler wanted peace is to ignore every shred of evidence - to entertain the notion that Hitler wanted peace is downright ahistorical. Hitler was obsessed with bloodshed.

Eudaimon;80119 wrote:
And it also doesn't make any claim regarding free will, religion etc.? I'd recommend thee to read Freud a little and that will probably correct thine opinion.


Freud was not involved in evolutionary theory. Further, Freud's psychology is read only out of respect for him being an early founded of the science, not because his theories are taken seriously in today's academic circles.

Eudaimon;80119 wrote:
So what didst thou said exactly? There must be present only people who are ready to change their minds, right? Therefore if someone proposes a correct idea everyone must agree with that. Therefore, how can there be variety of views?


I said exactly what I typed.

People should be admitted to the conversation if they are willing to give other views an honest hearing, if they are willing to consider other perspectives.

A variety of correct views can exist because views are expressed in language. The truth can be stated in many different ways.

Eudaimon;80119 wrote:
I know that enlightened zen masters are not enlightened for theravadins. Theravada's arhatship is not what adherents of mahayana want. Therefore, one is buddha in one tradition and not buddha in another. Therefore, their understanding has nothing to do with truth.


No.

First, you are confusing Arhat with Bodhisattva.

Second, anyone recognized as fully enlightened according to Mahayana standards will also be recognized as enlightened by Theravada standards.

Eudaimon;80119 wrote:
Some of zen masters were accused of sexual harrasment in the U.S. But they were recognised as enlightened...


I can only assume you are speaking of the Naropa University incident. Trungpa's status as enlightened is disputed given that he was a heavy alcoholic for much of his life. Technically, he is considered a tulku, and would therefore be enlightened, but given his lifestyle this distinction is sometimes dismissed. By the way, he was a Tibetan Buddhist teacher and charges of sexual harrasment were almost immediately cleared up. If you have some other incident in mind, let me know.

No matter - none of that addresses the topic of being able to recognize an enlightened being. Again, in the Buddhist tradition of all Buddhist sects, there is a long standing tradition of enlightened beings being immediately recognized by (some) people as clearly special. Disciples falling off of their donkeys at first sight of a master and so forth. Don't believe me, go look it up.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 01:12 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;80121 wrote:
You have yet to cite Catholic dogma regarding membership in that organization. Instead you provided unfounded speculation.

Catholic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Didymos Thomas;80121 wrote:
No. Hitler won elections because he had a personal army that persecuted those who opposed him.

In 1933?


Didymos Thomas;80121 wrote:
To argue that Hitler wanted peace is to ignore every shred of evidence - to entertain the notion that Hitler wanted peace is downright ahistorical. Hitler was obsessed with bloodshed.

Well, it does not matter. The point is that our notions may be biased as in case with religion in S.U. therefore we need hear what the adherents of teaching say.


Didymos Thomas;80121 wrote:
Freud was not involved in evolutionary theory. Further, Freud's psychology is read only out of respect for him being an early founded of the science, not because his theories are taken seriously in today's academic circles.

Really? Maybe now thou wilt show me some references to justify such a claim, because I have another information. BTW, is Jung also outdated?


Didymos Thomas;80121 wrote:
I said exactly what I typed.

People should be admitted to the conversation if they are willing to give other views an honest hearing, if they are willing to consider other perspectives.

A variety of correct views can exist because views are expressed in language. The truth can be stated in many different ways.

Therefore if we are discussing the prohibition of capital punishment in the U.S. shall we all agree? Or rather everyone will remain with his own ideas? In this case I think discussion is senseless at all according to thee.



Didymos Thomas;80121 wrote:
No.

First, you are confusing Arhat with Bodhisattva.

Second, anyone recognized as fully enlightened according to Mahayana standards will also be recognized as enlightened by Theravada standards.

No, I am not confusing. But theravada's arhat is not "fully enlightened" according to mahayana.


Didymos Thomas;80121 wrote:
I can only assume you are speaking of the Naropa University incident. Trungpa's status as enlightened is disputed given that he was a heavy alcoholic for much of his life. Technically, he is considered a tulku, and would therefore be enlightened, but given his lifestyle this distinction is sometimes dismissed. By the way, he was a Tibetan Buddhist teacher and charges of sexual harrasment were almost immediately cleared up. If you have some other incident in mind, let me know.

Read e.g. this material. On this site there are even more materials http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/ComingDownfromtheZenClouds.htm
 
Serena phil
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 04:41 am
@ElAleph,
I believe it is unethical for the inclusion of religion to be sourced in what's considered "universal politics." Ethics never needed religion, ethics was always a given. But religion manipulated ethics causing at least half of the corruption in the world. Now politics are trying to manipulate religion to promote ethics, thus more corruption.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 05:11 am
@ElAleph,
Quote:
ethics was always a given

Given by whom, and for what purpose? What does this mean, exactly?
 
Serena phil
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 05:31 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;80666 wrote:
Given by whom, and for what purpose? What does this mean, exactly?



Essentially or own cognitive development through evolvement gave us these abilities to formulate the concept of ethics and apply them to how we regulate society. There is not necessarily a predetermination to how we are suppose to use them, but I think the purpose could lie within the results of how they were used or reasons why they were formulated.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 05:38 am
@ElAleph,
Got any historical examples of what you mean, exactly? Given that the human species might have evolved an ethical concept, how was this expressed, exactly, if not through religions?
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 05:40 am
@Serena phil,
If man invented faith he invented ethics.Religion has been used to enforce ethics but by its dogmatic approach it has lost its authority to do so any more.We have risen above religious ethics, they are outdated.
 
Serena phil
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 06:15 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;80677 wrote:
Got any historical examples of what you mean, exactly? Given that the human species might have evolved an ethical concept, how was this expressed, exactly, if not through religions?



I cannot give specific names and events if that is what you are seeking. But through scientific studies, the development of language gave the development of dialectic thought thus giving people the ability to distinguish right from wrong and question it at the same time. People began to segregate themselves with others who shared the same perception of principals in which religion later became a result of this. But morality has always been an act of intuition, for many godless individuals have still performed deeds by which the majority would consider "good."
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 06:52 am
@ElAleph,
I tend to agree. Whether by tribal, community, town, camp or via any other collection of people, ideas of right and wrong behavior were bound to arise. Indeed, I believe they're likely are indemic to our species as a whole. That religion has played some part in formulating or enforcing these is simply another expression.

I suppose had we not evolved collectively and interdependent, there might now have arose any ethics at all. But as it is, the human animal has only multiplied and prospered to this point as a result of cooperation and community living. In such a setting, what is OK or not OK to do is an inevitable part (and actually enables it).

... or so I understand it to be.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 05:23 pm
@ElAleph,
I see the point you are making but it is not supported by any empirical evidence.

Until very recently in human history, individuals did not distinguish themselves from society. In other words, we were not 'individuals' in the sense that we are today. So I don't believe that humans were consciously reflective about ethics until modern times. Ethics were embodied in the tribal and collective behaviours, traditions and rituals. They were in no way the creation of the individual mind.

When you say 'which later became religion' in actual fact, evidence for what could be understood as 'religious behaviours' such as interring artefacts and flowers with bodies or creating ritual objects or paintings, actually goes back about 30,000 years.

The 'religion' you are talking about is of very recent origin, it is the modern intellectual's projection of religion. It has little to do with what it is in reality. But that is OK, it is the same for practically everyone.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 06:30 pm
@jeeprs,
Notice that the earliest discussions of ethics are always in religious context - this is true of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and in the east. Confucius was radical in that he discussed ethics without religious context.

We can have ethics without religion, but separating the two is rare and modern.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 10:00:24