Philosophy Now Forum

I'm not a Buddhist but he makes a good point concerning arguing God the origin of the universe.

One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Master and demanded that He explain the origin of the Universe to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings.

Plato described the human condition as if living in a cave attached to shadows on the wall so denied the potential of opening to the light of grace necessary for freedom from this psychological slavery. The Buddha knew this and tried to show that the struggle for freedom was more important than arguing theory. Of course in modern times many do not feel the slavery of the human condition so prefer to argue imagination.

I always liked that story, Nick. Thomas Nagel writes in his book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False

Our own existence presents us with the fact that somehow the world generates conscious beings capable of recognizing reasons for action and belief, distinguishing some necessary truths, and evaluating the evidence for alternative hypotheses about the natural order. We don’t know how this happens, but it is hard not to believe that there is some explanation of a systematic kind—an expanded account of the order of the world.

And it hard not to look for that explanation.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle or a fusion of both those ideas.

Reflex wrote:In other words, sthit, you don't want to address the topic of this thread; you don't want to posit a your directionalizing philosophy. Oh. That’s right. You don’t do philosophy.

All you want to do is argue. Buzz-off. What you have to say is as irrelevant as anything uwot has said in this thread. You obviously did not read the excerpt.

Got you, didn't I? You don't have an answer to anything I challenged you on, do you? Man you are one sore loser.

Nick_A wrote:I'm not a Buddhist but he makes a good point concerning arguing God the origin of the universe.

One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Master and demanded that He explain the origin of the Universe to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings.

Plato described the human condition as if living in a cave attached to shadows on the wall so denied the potential of opening to the light of grace necessary for freedom from this psychological slavery. The Buddha knew this and tried to show that the struggle for freedom was more important than arguing theory. Of course in modern times many do not feel the slavery of the human condition so prefer to argue imagination.

You left out one tiny detail. The Buddha didn't believe in God. He considered it a useless pursuit.

sthitapragya wrote:

Nick_A wrote:I'm not a Buddhist but he makes a good point concerning arguing God the origin of the universe.

One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Master and demanded that He explain the origin of the Universe to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings.

Plato described the human condition as if living in a cave attached to shadows on the wall so denied the potential of opening to the light of grace necessary for freedom from this psychological slavery. The Buddha knew this and tried to show that the struggle for freedom was more important than arguing theory. Of course in modern times many do not feel the slavery of the human condition so prefer to argue imagination.

You left out one tiny detail. The Buddha didn't believe in God. He considered it a useless pursuit.

He never stated one way or the other; that was the point of the parable. And, really, the point of this thread. Just go back and read the excerpt from the article I linked to. Sheesh.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Nick_A wrote:I'm not a Buddhist but he makes a good point concerning arguing God the origin of the universe.



Plato described the human condition as if living in a cave attached to shadows on the wall so denied the potential of opening to the light of grace necessary for freedom from this psychological slavery. The Buddha knew this and tried to show that the struggle for freedom was more important than arguing theory. Of course in modern times many do not feel the slavery of the human condition so prefer to argue imagination.

You left out one tiny detail. The Buddha didn't believe in God. He considered it a useless pursuit.

He never stated one way or the other; that was the point of the parable. And, really, the point of this thread. Just go back and read the excerpt from the article I linked to. Sheesh.

Of course he didn't. And I am not talking about the parable. I am saying that nick just quoted an atheist and made it about God. That is the height of desperation.

sthitapragya wrote:

Nick_A wrote:I'm not a Buddhist but he makes a good point concerning arguing God the origin of the universe.

One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Master and demanded that He explain the origin of the Universe to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings.

Plato described the human condition as if living in a cave attached to shadows on the wall so denied the potential of opening to the light of grace necessary for freedom from this psychological slavery. The Buddha knew this and tried to show that the struggle for freedom was more important than arguing theory. Of course in modern times many do not feel the slavery of the human condition so prefer to argue imagination.

You left out one tiny detail. The Buddha didn't believe in God. He considered it a useless pursuit.

It also just occurred to me that Nick has managed to twist this right round. This is actually what all you theists need to read, not atheist. You are the guys who need closure on the subject of the origin of the universe. Atheists rely on science and understand that we don't know the origin of the universe and also understand that it is an exercise in futility with our present knowledge.

You guys however are desperate for closure on the subject and that is reason why you jump to the conclusion of a creator God leaving no other option open at all.

So you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a wrong or unsubstantiated closure while maintaining you don't care. You guys obsess over the origin of the universe. Atheists are okay with the fact that they do not know because they, like the buddha, understand that desperation to know will simply lead to a wrong conclusion.

And no atheist would wait around to look for proof whether the arrow was poisoned or not. He would go straight to the hospital to let the doctors do their job. A theist however might go to the nearest temple and pray to God to save him. The man in the parable is a fool. He is neither a theist nor an atheist.

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
You left out one tiny detail. The Buddha didn't believe in God. He considered it a useless pursuit.

He never stated one way or the other; that was the point of the parable. And, really, the point of this thread. Just go back and read the excerpt from the article I linked to. Sheesh.

Of course he didn't. And I am not talking about the parable. I am saying that nick just quoted an atheist and made it about God. That is the height of desperation.

Seriously. Take a course in reading comprehension. Read the excerpt. Read the last sentence of the OP. And stop with the "dickishness." (A term the author of the article, an atheist himself, used to describe your behavior.)

Reflex wrote:Whew! With uwot parroting the ideas of a thoroughly discredited Joseph Atwill...

As it happens, I hadn't heard of Atwill, nor his book. I stumbled across his theory on YouTube where I saw it being discussed, without being credited. As I said to attofishpi, it was and still is common practise for people wishing to exert influence or control to make up some story, according to which they are representing a higher authority. There is no evidence that I am aware of, to suggest that Christianity is any different. Thank you for the reference, Reflex, and granted, Atwill's hypothesis isn't as compelling as I rashly took it to be.

Reflex wrote:So, I'll ask my critics one last time: what "myth" or narrative give your life direction and, at the same time, is both comforting and intellectually satisfying?

Well, unless you are claiming that all religions are equal, your critics will include adherents to religions other than your own. Personally, I would not be intellectually satisfied with a narrative that was deliberately 'comforting'. What is it you need comforting about?

Reflex wrote:What's your directionalizing and in-depth narrative or philosophy of life --

Make the most of it.

Reflex wrote: I mean besides one of the five previously listed?

Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are

In my view, no it won't. If I believe anything, it is that theories are necessarily underdetermined.

Reflex wrote:'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief.

'Why?' is a perfectly reasonable question, but it is foolish to be dogmatic about your answer.

Reflex wrote:I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can

It's not because I don't know that no one else can; again, it is underdetermination. No matter how successfully an hypothesis or mathematical model accounts for the observations, there is no way to prove that it will account for all future observations. It's the problem of induction.

Reflex wrote:I don't know, but not that (God)

I don't know, and for all I know, it could be god.

Reflex wrote:Anything that can happen does (with God being the soul exception), so God isn't necessary.

There are too many things that could happen for them all to happen.

oh...and two more things, sthit: tell us what your directionalizing philosophy consists of and learn a little more about Buddhism, as it, too, has its narrative, cosmology and spiritual beliefs.

Like I said in the beginning:

1) The power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal and

2) it is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average person unless it becomes emotionally activated.

Uwot: I'm guessing that you don't know what I mean by a "directionalizing philosophy" or a "satisfying narrative consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live." Sheesh. Take a course in reading comprehension and writing so you can proffer your narrative for consideration. It doesn't have to be about or include God, or even what is factually true; it just has to be meaningful. Read the excerpt and the last sentence of the OP, too, that is, if you can read. So far I haven't seen any evidence of it.

You two and Hobbes have nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.

Reflex wrote:Uwot: I'm guessing that you don't know what I mean by a "directionalizing philosophy"

Well, I may have missed it, but that's because I haven't read your "directionalizing philosophy". What "satisfying narrative consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live." do you wish me to provide an alternative to?

Reflex wrote:Well, actually it is simultaneous, the expansion of the universe is irrelevant to the fact of quantum entanglement, and God or no God, if you can't see the connection you have all the intellectual depth of a dehydrated sponge (or Lacewing...take your pick).

Quantum entanglement is a notoriously fragile relationship. There is no evidence that every particle in the universe is entangled with every other. The vast majority of influences are demonstrably limited by the speed of light.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote:
He never stated one way or the other; that was the point of the parable. And, really, the point of this thread. Just go back and read the excerpt from the article I linked to. Sheesh.

Of course he didn't. And I am not talking about the parable. I am saying that nick just quoted an atheist and made it about God. That is the height of desperation.

Seriously. Take a course in reading comprehension. Read the excerpt. Read the last sentence of the OP. And stop with the "dickishness." (A term the author of the article, an atheist himself, used to describe your behavior.)

Okay, so I went back and read your OP. I can see that you seem to somehow think that a quantum field is God. That is frankly weird, but okay, whatever turns you on. i would suggest that you read more on the subject and maybe you will realize that it is a field, not an omnipotent being which tells you how to live your life. And as expected, because you don't understand you will simply jump to the conclusion that it is God. Well, it is a quantum field. Calling it God makes it God and not a quantum field. But since you want closure, you can continue in your delusion.

The last sentence is : "As I said in the beginning, religion is not about God, or even what is factually true, but about formulating a satisfying narrative consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live."

You know you could formulate a narrative on how to live your life without knowing who you are and where you come from. You even today do not know who you are and where you come from. Yet you have found how you should live. And you don't need any narrative for that. You just observe and learn from other people, how they react to things you do. If the react positively, you can continue to do it. If they react negatively, it might make more sense to stop doing it, unless you have the power to continue doing it. That is how you learn.

However, if believing that a quantum field told you how to live your life works for you, then fine. As long as it works. And it has a novelty value. I have heard of believers Xenu and Ra. Never heard of a believer in a quantum field. I'll give you this. It definitely sounds more interesting and sophisticated and sciency than believing in a god called Bob.

Clearly I am not going to get a response. Either my critics the wherewithal or are cowards.

Reflex wrote:Clearly I am not going to get a response. Either my critics the wherewithal or are cowards.

We're not the ones that need a comforting narrative. If that is your main criterion, you can soothe yourself with whatever nonsense you find palliative. But if you really seek direction on how to live, my advice is be honest with yourself.