Definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism

[Randwolf]

RandWolf: This challenge occurs quite often in the context of theological discussions.

Prove any negative. Go ahead, give it a try. Looking forward to your reply.​

The challenger naively assumes that it is impossible to prove a negative.

There are many axiomtic systems which are capable of proving negatives. The basic structure of such a proof is as follows.

To prove that XXX does not exist, start by assuming that XXX exists.

Next show that you can prove some statement which contradicts a basic axiom of the system.

Conclude that the starting assumption was false because it led to a fundamental contradiction: XXX exists is false, ergo XXX does not exist.​

The problem with proving/disproving the existence of god is the requirement for a set of pertinent axioms, including some relating to logic (EG: the law of the excluded middle).

Ummmm...

I totally and naively missed where you proved God doesn't exist, God does exist, or proved any other, errr, position.

I especially adore:

To prove that XXX does not exist, start by assuming that XXX exists.

To this, I would simply answer... wait for it... "no".

 

[Yazata]

This challenge occurs quite often in the context of theological discussions.

Prove any negative. Go ahead, give it a try. Looking forward to your reply.​

The challenger naively assumes that it is impossible to prove a negative.

There are many axiomtic systems which are capable of proving negatives. The basic structure of such a proof is as follows.

To prove that XXX does not exist, start by assuming that XXX exists.

Next show that you can prove some statement which contradicts a basic axiom of the system.

Conclude that the starting assumption was false because it led to a fundamental contradiction

: XXX exists is false, ergo XXX does not exist.​

The problem with proving/disproving the existence of god is the requirement for a set of pertinent axioms, including some relating to logic (EG: the law of the excluded middle).

I agree with Dinosaur. It seems to be an article of faith on internet discussion boards that "you can't prove a negative". Nevertheless, in logic people can often do exactly that. A common way to accomplish it is with a 'reductio-ad-absurdem' proof, as Dinosaur explains.

Randwolf objects to the idea, so I'll have a shot at explaining it.

Suppose that you want to prove that X is false. Assuming conventional two-valued logic, that amounts to proving that ~X is true. (In this instance, imagine that X means 'God exists' and ~X means not(God exists) or 'God doesn't exist'. An extremely common proof strategy in both logic and mathematics is to hypothetically assume instead that X is true. Then if you can create a proof that derives both some proposition A and the negation of that same proposition ~A from the assumption X, you are logically justified in concluding that X is false and hence that ~X is true.

That's not really as complicated as it sounds, it's just a proof that it's self-contradictory to assert X.

That being said, I don't think that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of God. That's mainly because the whole topic is so vague, poorly-defined and nebulous. Lack of clarity probably comes with the territory when we are trying to consider something that's (supposedly) "infinite" and "beyond human conception".

 

[Mind Over Matter]

This is a most extraordinary conception of karma!
I have never heard anything like that.

Karma is basically the principle that "what goes around, comes around", "as you do to others, so it shall be done unto you".
I certainly encourages morality.

At a first glance, yeah it appears so, but we look at it from a Catholic perspective. Only from Jesus do we get "Do unto others... ." Usually it's taught (in other faiths) to "Don't do unto others... ." It doesn't encourage one to go out of ones way to do good. Take the Japanese for example, they are an extremely kind people. Karma is the prevailing thought in Japan. There are many culturally unacceptable things there, such as blowing ones nose, but a Japanese person would never confront you because that might humiliate you and then that person would fear that they too would be made to feel humiliated at one point.

On the other hand, for example, it can justify honour killings which does happen in societies where "karma" is prevalent. If a family member does something to bring dishonour to the family they can be killed because a) they had it coming and b) they often would rather die then continue to live with the shame of dishonouring ones family.

 

[wynn]

At a first glance, yeah it appears so, but we look at it from a Catholic perspective. Only from Jesus do we get "Do unto others... ." Usually it's taught (in other faiths) to "Don't do unto others... ." It doesn't encourage one to go out of ones way to do good. Take the Japanese for example, they are an extremely kind people. Karma is the prevailing thought in Japan. There are many culturally unacceptable things there, such as blowing ones nose, but a Japanese person would never confront you because that might humiliate you and then that person would fear that they too would be made to feel humiliated at one point.

On the other hand, for example, it can justify honour killings which does happen in societies where "karma" is prevalent. If a family member does something to bring dishonour to the family they can be killed because a) they had it coming and b) they often would rather die then continue to live with the shame of dishonouring ones family.

Should we look up passages from the Bible, on killing unbelievers, how Jesus brought the sword, and how "he that is not with me is against me" - and the things that can be justified with those scriptures?

With some stretching or limiting, anything can be used to justify anything, good or bad.
It just depends on whether one wants to portray the other side as lesser than oneself, or not.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Should we look up passages from the Bible, on killing unbelievers, how Jesus brought the sword, and how "he that is not with me is against me" - and the things that can be justified with those scriptures?

With some stretching or limiting, anything can be used to justify anything, good or bad.
It just depends on whether one wants to portray the other side as lesser than oneself, or not.

While it's true that one can manipulate the verses of the bible to say what they want, they do so dishonestly and thus discredit themselves. The Bible can't truly be used to prove anything contrary to it though, since it has often many verses in the contrary and even context can discredit certain personal interpretations.

Take your example of killing believers. There are several passages that say we have no right to kill anyone. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". While it's true that those not with Christ are against him is common sense, it in no way implys some sort of punishment. The Word of God being a two edged sword is figurative and descrbes in a sense how the word both blesses and uplifes while it condems sin at the same time. Jesus told the disciples to get swords at the last supper. One of the disciples struck a servent and cut off his ear but he didn't die. In fact, Jesus healed him! Anyone with common knowledge of why Jesus came know that this describes what sin does and that Jesus heals - it in no way advocates violence but rather illustrates the violence of sin.

Karma on the other hand has no set standard that regulates what is morally good or bad. What is bad is what you think is bad and what is good is what you think is good. So I'm not taking anything out of context at all, that's really what karma is.

 

[wynn]

Karma on the other hand has no set standard that regulates what is morally good or bad. What is bad is what you think is bad and what is good is what you think is good. So I'm not taking anything out of context at all, that's really what karma is.

This is very simplistic and lacks understanding.

Buddhists operate out of the notion that there is a regularity of the Dharma, there is an objective good and an objective bad.

"What is bad is what you think is bad and what is good is what you think is good." is a gross misunderstanding.


But frankly, I find myself unwilling to talk about anything with you, given your apparent supremacism.
Like so many other Christians, you rely on third-hand Christian sources about Buddhism, and then claim to know the truth about it.
This is really underhand.

 

[Yazata]

At a first glance, yeah it appears so, but we look at it from a Catholic perspective.

The Catholic perspective is obviously important in properly understanding how Catholics interpret their own doctrines. But I fail to understand its relevance to understanding Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

On the other hand, for example, it can justify honour killings which does happen in societies where "karma" is prevalent.

Killing is a violation of the first of the five 'Pancasila' precepts that observant Buddhist laypeople are supposed to adhere to. Buddhist psychological ethics would doubtless respond to the desire to kill somebody in order to preserve one's sense of honor by interpreting the motivation as a destructive manifestation of pathological self-fascination.

Far from licensing such behavior, the doctrine of karma teaches that moral actions such as murder bring with them inevitable and inescapable future consequences. If those consequences don't make themselves apparent in this life, they will become manifest in the killer's post-mortem existence.

The idea of karma isn't really all that different from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea of judgement. Both karma and judgement affirm that actions have inevitable consequences and that things will eventually turn out fairly, even if it doesn't always look that way to us right now. The difference is that with judgement, the consequences are imagined as the legal rulings of a cosmic court, while with karma they are imagined as the natural result of the ethical laws of nature.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

But frankly, I find myself unwilling to talk about anything with you, given your apparent supremacism.
Like so many other Christians, you rely on third-hand Christian sources about Buddhism, and then claim to know the truth about it.
This is really underhand.

No, I never judged non-Catholics as completely wrong, nor judges Catholics as completely right. For example, it is a fact that the Catholic Church believes that one can still be saved even if not formally a member of the Catholic Church. You may have heard that, outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. Some wrongly interpret that as one must be formally a Catholic (i.e., baptized as Catholic) to be saved. If you are one of those, you have a lot to learn. Please read the whole Catechism of the Catholic Church for you own knowledge - and then follow that up with reading the Canon laws.

What makes you think I rely on third-hand Christian sources about Buddhism, and then claim to know the truth about it? The important stuff is pretty straightforward: love one another, pray for your enemies, feed the hungry, treat others as you wish to be treated.

Contrasting opinions, discourse and dialogue is a foundation of human understanding and growth. What we need isn't to resolve, but to respect.

IMO.

Which may be different than yours.

But, hey, I respect that.

 

[Yazata]

Mind over Matter wrote:

Many of the codes -such as karma- encourage immorality because each man thinks he is infalliable and not all men have the same mind thus there is a contradiction.

Part of the confusion there is that karma isn't a code. It's a theory of ethical cause-and-effect.

Signal exclaimed:

This is a most extraordinary conception of karma!
I have never heard anything like that.
Karma is basically the principle that "what goes around, comes around", "as you do to others, so it shall be done unto you".
It certainly encourages morality.

Signal's right.

Karma encourages morality by assuring believers in karma that ethical misbehavior has inevitable future negative consequences. Ethical good behavior has positive future consequences. As I wrote in my last post, that's not tremendously dissimilar to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic theory of divine judgement. The difference lies in how the theories think the inevitable future consequences come about.

Notice that the theory of karma and the theory of divine judgement are both affirmations of moral consequences, but neither theory actually informs people which behaviors have which consequences. So both theories are incomplete as they stand and have historically been accompanied by lists of commandments in the divine judgement case, and by lists of moral precepts in karma's case.

Lay Buddhist practice places great emphasis on what's called 'merit making', which is essentially the performance of morally meritorious acts in order to reorient one's present and subsequent existence onto an upward trajectory.

Karma on the other hand has no set standard that regulates what is morally good or bad. What is bad is what you think is bad and what is good is what you think is good. So I'm not taking anything out of context at all, that's really what karma is.

Mind over Matter is trying to interpret karma as if it was a theory of ethical relativism. In fact, it's precisely the opposite. Karma is the affirmation that moral acts and moral consequences are tied together by an objective law of nature that holds true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

It can be rather subtle though, and what people think definitely isn't irrelevant. Indian philosophical ethics contains debates about what aspect of behavior generates the moral effects. Some argued that it's actual physical behavior that matters. What a person thinks about an action doesn't matter, it's what he or she physically does. The more psychologistic Buddhists disagreed with that, arguing that it's the inner intention that generates karmic consequences. So in Buddhism, an accidental killing has karmic consequences, but they are different and less severe than those of an intentional killing, even if the physical motions and their results are identical. But a decision to commit a murder that's subsequently prevented by some outside agency still carries pretty severe karmic consequences, even though nothing physically happened at all.

That led ancient Buddhist philosophy to generate early theories of psychological motivation and action with a sophistication that modern Western philosophical action theorists and ethical psychologists are only beginning to appreciate.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Mind over Matter wrote:



Part of the confusion there is that karma isn't a code. It's a theory of ethical cause-and-effect.

Signal exclaimed:



Signal's right.

Karma encourages morality by assuring believers in karma that ethical misbehavior has inevitable future negative consequences. Ethical good behavior has positive future consequences. As I wrote in my last post, that's not tremendously dissimilar to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic theory of divine judgement. The difference lies in how the theories think the inevitable future consequences come about.

Notice that the theory of karma and the theory of divine judgement are both affirmations of moral consequences, but neither theory actually informs people which behaviors have which consequences. So both theories are incomplete as they stand and have historically been accompanied by lists of commandments in the divine judgement case, and by lists of moral precepts in karma's case.

Lay Buddhist practice places great emphasis on what's called 'merit making', which is essentially the performance of morally meritorious acts in order to reorient one's present and subsequent existence onto an upward trajectory.



Mind over Matter is trying to interpret karma as if it was a theory of ethical relativism. In fact, it's precisely the opposite. Karma is the affirmation that moral acts and moral consequences are tied together by an objective law of nature that holds true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

It can be rather subtle though, and what people think definitely isn't irrelevant. Indian philosophical ethics contains debates about what aspect of behavior generates the moral effects. Some argued that it's actual physical behavior that matters. What a person thinks about an action doesn't matter, it's what he or she physically does. The more psychologistic Buddhists disagreed with that, arguing that it's the inner intention that generates karmic consequences. So in Buddhism, an accidental killing has karmic consequences, but they are different and less severe than those of an intentional killing, even if the physical motions and their results are identical. But a decision to commit a murder that's subsequently prevented by some outside agency still carries pretty severe karmic consequences, even though nothing physically happened at all.

That led ancient Buddhist philosophy to generate early theories of psychological motivation and action with a sophistication that modern Western philosophical action theorists and ethical psychologists are only beginning to appreciate.

"Karma" is a belief that you get back, whatever you deserve.. good or bad.. from this life or previous lives.

It implies a belief in.. or acceptance of reincarnation. Which the Catholic Church teaches us, is false.

"Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once." There is no "reincarnation" after death. (CCC 1013)

Hope this helps. God bless.

 

[wynn]

On the grounds of what are we all supposed to accept that the Catholic Church is ultimately the one and only right source of divine knowledge?

"Because God appointed it" is not an answer that we, who do not accept the Catholic Chruch, can do anything with. In fact, it would require some higher knowledge, if not omniscience, to know that "God appointed the Catholic Church, but not any other".

 

[wynn]

What makes you think I rely on third-hand Christian sources about Buddhism, and then claim to know the truth about it?

Because you cite Christian sources who make statements about Buddhism, and you make statements such as above, quoting CCC 1013.

The important stuff is pretty straightforward: love one another, pray for your enemies, feed the hungry, treat others as you wish to be treated.

That's Buddhism according to Christianity ...

Contrasting opinions, discourse and dialogue is a foundation of human understanding and growth. What we need isn't to resolve, but to respect.

And by "respect", you mean 'agreeing with you' (as the representative of the Catholic Church?)?

You sometimes say "and that is the truth" and similar, quoting Catholic doctrine.
This suggests that you're in this to resolve - even to take the upper hand.



How can you say you respect someone or something, and then imply or claim that they are wrong??

 

[Mind Over Matter]

How can you say you respect someone or something, and then imply or claim that they are wrong??

Clarification: Being a Christian is a privilage in the sense that we have been given an explicit wareness of God's total self-comunication to mankind - in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. This knowledge, this faith, is a gift. God has chosen us because he has a task for us to perform. The fact that he has chosen us doea not make us better than anyone else.

 

[wynn]

Clarification: Being a Christian is a privilage in the sense that we have been given an explicit wareness of God's total self-comunication to mankind - in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. This knowledge, this faith, is a gift. God has chosen us because he has a task for us to perform. The fact that he has chosen us doea not make us better than anyone else.

Do you believe that?

Or are you saying all these things so that we (the pagans, heathens, lowlifes, scumbags and whatever other disgusting, worthless, evil thing we are in the eyes of Christians)
would see you as such as you state above
and believe you are bringing us the one and only true word about God?


God has chosen you because He has a a task to perform for you - it is first and foremost we who should believe this, right?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Do you believe that?

Or are you saying all these things so that we (the pagans, heathens, lowlifes, scumbags and whatever other disgusting, worthless, evil thing we are in the eyes of Christians)
would see you as such as you state above
and believe you are bringing us the one and only true word about God?


God has chosen you because He has a a task to perform for you - it is first and foremost we who should believe this, right?

Again, to be Christian is both a privilege and a challenge.

You're welcome to disagree.

 

[Yazata]

My purpose in making my last couple of posts was to explain the traditional doctrine of karma as accurately as possible and clear up some errors. Specifically, karma is not a theory of relativistic ethical subjectivism and it doesn't encourage immorality.

It's not my intention to convince anyone that karma is literally true. I don't believe that myself. I'm just concerned that it be correctly understood and that its implications unfold properly.

Nor am I the least bit concerned about whether or not traditional Indian concepts such as karma are consistent with Roman Catholic teaching. They aren't Catholic doctrines, so there's no reason why they need to be.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

My purpose in making my last couple of posts was to explain the traditional doctrine of karma as accurately as possible and clear up some errors. Specifically, karma is not a theory of relativistic ethical subjectivism and it doesn't encourage immorality.

It's not my intention to convince anyone that karma is literally true. I don't believe that myself. I'm just concerned that it be correctly understood and that its implications unfold properly.

Nor am I the least bit concerned about whether or not traditional Indian concepts such as karma are consistent with Roman Catholic teaching. They aren't Catholic doctrines, so there's no reason why they need to be.

Karma is a concept from Indian religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. The Buddhist version is that your actions will have effects:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2

 

[wynn]

Leaving aside that the Dhammapada is often not considered a normative source in Buddhism -


What do you think is meant by "mind" in the above passage?
How do you think that the "mind" functions?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Leaving aside that the Dhammapada is often not considered a normative source in Buddhism -

By whom? The Dhammapada is part of the Pali Canon and there are translations of the Sanskrit version (the udanavarga) in both the Tibetan and Chinese Canons

What do you think is meant by "mind" in the above passage?

The standard Buddhist static analysis of a human being is into five parts, one physical (form) and four mental (feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness). These last four constitute "mind".

How do you think that the "mind" functions?

For the functioning of mind Buddhist need to look at a dynamic analysis, pratitya samutpada, which has twelve stages. The three stages they are interested in are six, Contact, seven, Feeling, and eight, Desire. Contact is when they observe something through one of our senses. Feeling is the initial analysis of the sense-contact into unpleasant, pleasant or neutral. This is separate from the initial contact. If they are hungry then the taste of a hamburger may be pleasant. If nearing the limit in an eating competition then the same taste of a hamburger may be unpleasant. The same contact may give rise to different feelings at different times. Depending on the feelings Desire will arise. Pleasant feelings give rise to the desire for more hamburger. Unpleasant feelings give rise to the desire for less hamburger in the example. From the desire actions arise.

If the desire is towards good then the actions will have pleasant results. If the desire is towards evil then the actions will have unpleasant results.

 

[wynn]

By whom?

Some Buddhists.

The Dhammapada is part of the Pali Canon and there are translations of the Sanskrit version (the udanavarga) in both the Tibetan and Chinese Canons

The Dhp was composed after the Sutta Pitaka, and there are discrepancies between the Dhp and the Suttas, and also between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma (notably, according to the Suttas, one has free will, and according to the Abhidhamma, one doesn't).

Nor am I the least bit concerned about whether or not traditional Indian concepts such as karma are consistent with Roman Catholic teaching. They aren't Catholic doctrines, so there's no reason why they need to be.

Seconded.