Atheist questions

[tonyrey]

If spiritual causation is “ordinary”, i.e. physical, causation, the spirit must be inert! Why bother to distinguish spirit from body at all? It would be the body that should be held responsible for a person’s decisions…

Why is there a divide at all? Who and what determines the dividing line? And how?

Cause must precede effect for both material and spiritual realms and so on. There is only one causation which works the same in both realms. You appear to be trying to set up a second causation about which you can tell us nothing except that we know nothing about it. Hardly a very useful concept.

If all causation is material we have no choice in the** matter** at all! If your decisions have material causes they are not yours at all. You can be no more than a cog in a machine…

You may not find spiritual causation useful but it is the sole explanation of responsibility.

How do you know all appearances are deceptive? What is your criterion of reality?

We can never know reality directly. All we know is through our senses and we know that our senses are deficient, incomplete and imperfect. We see less accurately than a hawk. We smell less sensitively than a Bloodhound. The electrical impulses that arrive at our brains from our sense organs are only a very imperfect reflection of the external reality. The models we build inside our heads, using those electrical impulses as raw material, are even further removed from reality. Reification is yet another level of abstraction built on top of those models. That is why I see reification as dangerous; it is too far removed from reality.

Are we real? If we cannot be sure we are real we cannot be sure our thoughts are real. **We **are not entitled to draw any conclusions at all - including the conclusion that all we know is through our senses - because there is no we to draw any conclusions!

You may not find spiritual causation useful but it is the sole explanation of responsibility…

If everything is an illusion an illusion must be an illusion! Knowledge and truth must be illusions. How can you distinguish between reality and an illusion? The distinction between reality and appearance disappears utterly…

The illusion is that we think what we sense is real.

Then not everything is an illusion!

What we sense is electrical impulses arriving along our sensory nerves into our brains. Does my computer comprise only a set of electrical impulses in my sensory nerves? No it does not, but I can never know it as anything other than a collection of sensory impulses.

How do you know that it is a collection of sensory impulses? That is no more than an inference from your perceptions. The only reality of which we can be certain is our stream of consciousness.

How do you know you are enlightened? Your enlightenment could be self-deception!

I am not enlightened.

Then your interpretation of Buddhism may well be erroneous.

Because it is the soul that is free not the body. The body is a physical mechanism which functions according to the laws of nature.

There is no soul in anyone or anything. You will not convince a Buddhist if you require a soul as part of your argument.

Do Buddhists reject the mind as well as the soul? What survives after death?

Omniscience does not rule out self-determinism. Neither knowledge nor foreknowledge is a form of causality.

I am sure that all those philosophers who have spent thousands of years discussing the relationship between omniscience, determinism and free will will be glad to know that all their problems have been solved.

Your sarcasm does not refute my statements.

The present is not necessarily better than the past.

Of course. It may be better, it may be the same or it may be worse.

What determines whether it is better?

You still need a criterion to assess which is better. Comparison alone is not enough to reach a decision. And, more crucially, what is making the decision?

We compare outcomes. Does the outcome tend towards peace, happiness or nirvana? Does it increase greed, hatred or delusion? “By their fruits shall you know them.”

Why do you consider the former to be preferable?

 

[JDaniel]

Your intentions change over your lifetime. You may have the intention “I want to get a drink of water”. Once you have gone to the kitchen and got your drink then you no longer have that intention. Since it is no longer there, and you are still there, then that intention was not you.

Rossum:

No where in my rhetoric did I ever say that “**I am my intention **(singular or plural).” This a sidetracking episode?

The elements that compose the aggregate are all changing, coming and going. None of them are permanent. None of them are you.

No where in my rhetoric did I ever say that "the elements of my composite are me.

There is a standard list of 32 parts of the body, sometimes used in meditation practice: hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, … tears, sweat, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.

Please do a little favor for me. Never repeat that list to me again. (I was about to eat dinner!)

Consciousness is consciousness, whatever its object.

Not so. The awareness of awareness, or, consciousness of consciousness, is that which separates us from the others - save man. It is precisely that the others, save man, do not construct us, or any of the other others, in their minds, that we know that we are different, in very major ways, from them and that it is we that exist. It is the ultimate freedom. Only we have such freedom to reject the objects of our senses as objects.

My question was rhetorical. If we are still ourselves when we are unconscious then it is not necessary to have consciousness in order to be ourselves.

So that the termination of life for Terry Schiavo, precisely because it was believed that she was no longer human due precisely to her unconsciousness, was a positive (good) thing?

Wishing for non-existence is also an error.

We agree on that.

All are aggregates, though the elements of the aggregate are different. Remember that in Buddhism we have all been born/hatched as many sorts of animals and may be in future as well.

If that is the case then why are humans distinct from one another? Why do we know who we are viewing when we merely look at someone, rather than having to go through the entire litany of recognition rituals that the animals do? Why do we know who we are looking at when we view a picture of someone we know, even slightly? If we came back as animals, from time to time, then humans, from time to time, then animals, from time to time, then humans, etc., etc., why do we come back fully equipped, from babyhood, to very rapidly learn to recognize? In a way quite different from the animals?

But during that temporary time that aggregate is still human, despite being without either consciousness or intentions. Hence showing that neither are essential to being human.

If we turn the car off and throw away the keys, somewhere where we can’t retrieve them, or obtain a new set, is a car essentially still a car?

Your liver is internal to your physical body. We both agree that there is more to a human being than just a physical body.

Good.

No. Someone who follows the Father’s will would not be catatonic, but neither would they be following their own will.

Despite that they have freedom? Despite that they can refuse? Despite that they can alter how they will follow the Father’s will?

It is well worth reading if you can find a good translation. There is much that applies to all and not just to Buddhists.

I will look for one and ask you about the translator.

JDaniel, Benedict XVI, Francis of Assisi, Shakya Gautama Siddhartha, Jesus of Nazareth etc.

I specifically said “car”, in quotes, so that your answer would not be a word-play, or a list that included God and some great men. You, of course, know that Christ said that we men are all gods, that, we are all “Christs”. I think it’s interesting considering that Buddhism regards men as gods and vice versa.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

If all causation is material we have no choice in the** matter** at all!

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that causation is causation. It is the same causation whether it applies to physical, spiritual or both objects. There is only one type of causation which applies to all.

Are we real?

We are real enough to have this discussion. We are also real enough to realise that we can make errors and be mistaken about things.

Then not everything is an illusion!

Everything inside our heads can be an illusion. We can never directly know that which is outside our heads. All of our knowledge is mediated through our senses which inevitably introduce an element of distortion and error. The illusion is to ignore the existence of that distortion and error.

How do you know that it is a collection of sensory impulses?

Anatomy. All our sense organs are connected to our brains by sensory nerves.

Then your interpretation of Buddhism may well be erroneous.

Of course it might. Just like Christianity there are many different interpretations available from many different people.

Do Buddhists reject the mind as well as the soul? What survives after death?

Buddhists analyse a human being into five elements: form, feelings, impulses, perceptions and consciousness. Form is the physical body, the other four constitute ‘mind’. Parts of the impulses element and an attenuated consciousness survive into the next life after death. The impulses element carries our current karma. None of the five elements are permanent, all five change during and between lives.

What determines whether it is better?

Whether it is more conducive to peace, happiness and the attainment of nirvana.

Why do you consider the former to be preferable?

I am not a masochist so I consider that happiness is preferable to unhappiness.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No where in my rhetoric did I ever say that “***I am my intention ***(singular or plural).”

That we can exist without intention shows that intention is not an essential part of us. At most it is peripheral. Similarly we can go through many other parts and show that they are all peripheral, impermanent, changing.

Not so. The awareness of awareness, or, consciousness of consciousness, is that which separates us from the others - save man.

There is a simple test for self-awareness that is passed by most humans, chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins and some birds. Babies up to about 18 months fail the test. You should not be so dogmatic about the uniqueness of man. See Mirror test.

It is precisely that the others, save man, do not construct us, or any of the other others, in their minds, that we know that we are different, in very major ways, from them and that it is we that exist.

How can you know what a dolphin thinks?

So that the termination of life for Terry Schiavo, precisely because it was believed that she was no longer human due precisely to her unconsciousness, was a positive (good) thing?

Terry Schiavo was still Terry Schiavo, even when she did not have consciousness. Hence the existence of consciousness was not required in order for Terry Schiavo to exist. I am making the same point as I was with intention earlier. There are many parts to being human, and none of those parts is essential. We can always find an example of a human without that part.

If that is the case then why are humans distinct from one another?

Because we have different bodies and our other constituent parts are different as well. Our histories are different, our feelings are different, our perceptions are different.

If we turn the car off and throw away the keys, somewhere where we can’t retrieve them, or obtain a new set, is a car essentially still a car?

You know what I think about words like “essentially”. It is a different assembly because at least one of the parts, the keys, has changed. It is similar, but not the same. It is similar enough to be still called a car, but ‘car’ is a wide category covering a large number of disparate assemblies.

I will look for one and ask you about the translator.

I have not read all translations, but the one I use most is Narada Thera’s. There are many translations available on the Internet as well.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

If all causation is material we have no choice in the matter at all!

So decision-making is the same as a chemical reaction?

Are we

real?We are real enough to have this discussion. We are also real enough to realise that we can make errors and be mistaken about things.

“enough” suggests that we are not fully real - or that there are degrees of reality.

Everything inside our heads can be an illusion. We can never directly know that which is outside our heads. All of our knowledge is mediated through our senses which inevitably introduce an element of distortion and error. The illusion is to ignore the existence of that distortion and error.

Then there must be some knowledge which is free from illusion…

How do you know that it is a collection of sensory impulses?

Anatomy. All our sense organs are connected to our brains by sensory nerves.

Do you believe **all **knowledge is located in our brains?

Then your interpretation of Buddhism may well be erroneous.

Of course it might. Just like Christianity there are many different interpretations available from many different people.

Why do you believe Buddhism is true?

Do Buddhists reject the mind as well as the soul? What survives after death?

Buddhists analyse a human being into five elements: form, feelings, impulses, perceptions and consciousness. Form is the physical body, the other four constitute ‘mind’. Parts of the impulses element and an attenuated consciousness survive into the next life after death. The impulses element carries our current karma. None of the five elements are permanent, all five change during and between lives.

How is consciousness related to the impulses element? And where does reason come in?

What determines whether it is better?

Whether it is more conducive to peace, happiness and the attainment of nirvana.

Doesn’t nirvana exclude peace and happiness?

Why do you consider the former to be preferable?

I am not a masochist so I consider that happiness is preferable to unhappiness.

Shouldn’t a Buddhist be detached from such considerations?

 

[greylorn]

If an actual infinite cannot exist, does it follow that God cannot exist?

Depends upon your definition of God. Define God as infinite and omnipotent and the answer seems to be yes. However if God is defined as an entity capable of constructing the universe and its stuff, who need not be infinite, the answer is clearly no.

If nothing can only come from nothing, does it follow that there is no such a thing as a God that can create out of nothing?

Yes, it does. From that one may conclude that God made the universe from something which already existed.

Is the First Cause argument for the existence of God begging the question?

Yes, IMO. But as I recall, the argument does not apply to a God who did not always exist as a conscious entity.

 

[rossum]

So decision-making is the same as a chemical reaction?

Of course not. Idaho is not the same as California, yet both can be described as “states of the USA” Conscious decision making is not the same as a chemical reaction yet they can both be described as “causation”.

“enough” suggests that we are not fully real - or that there are degrees of reality.

It means that our internal models are close enough to reality that they function well without any major errors. You have an internal model of me, just as I have an internal model of you. Our respective internal models of each other both lack many details yet they are good enough for us to have this conversation.

Then there must be some knowledge which is free from illusion.

How do you propose that we acquire such knowledge without it passing through one or other of our senses?

Do you believe **all **knowledge is located in our brains?

No, but it all passes through our brains.

Why do you believe Buddhism is true?

I have tried it and it works. It delivers on its promises.

How is consciousness related to the impulses element? And where does reason come in?

See The Five Aggregates - A Study Guide for a lot more details on this. Reason is part of the consciousness element.

Doesn’t nirvana exclude peace and happiness?

[The Buddha said:] There is, monks, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, monks, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

– Udana 8.3
Nirvana is often described in negative terms, as above, by saying what it is not. Given the limitations of any human language then it is safe to say that all descriptions of nirvana are in error. Perhaps Vimalakirti’s silence comes the closest.

Shouldn’t a Buddhist be detached from such considerations?

What Buddhists should do, and what Buddhists actually do are not always the same this side of enlightenment.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

That we can exist without intention shows that intention is not an essential part of us. At most it is peripheral. Similarly we can go through many other parts and show that they are all peripheral, impermanent, changing.

Rossum:

I disagree that we can exist without intention. Perhaps in a near-vegetative state. Perhaps in a poor state where the situation of a group of some sort exists. Intention is far beyond just peripheral. But, that’s my opinion.

There is a simple test for self-awareness that is passed by most humans, chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins and some birds. Babies up to about 18 months fail the test. You should not be so dogmatic about the uniqueness of man.

Yes, I’ve seen this before. There was a very good TV show about bonobos, a couple of years back. They tried to show that they had self-awareness. It was very inconclusive.

cogprints.org/3790/1/RHSA.pdf

How can you know what a dolphin thinks?

Well, in a past life, I used to be a dolphin. And, I can’t remember a single thing!

All seriousness aside; see below:

“And while metacognition can involve self-awareness, the “I” part of the equation isn’t a necessary ingredient, Smith said. Scientists are not sure if other animals possess self-awareness.” - livescience.com/animals/090915-thoughtful-animals.html

Terry Schiavo was still Terry Schiavo, even when she did not have consciousness. Hence the existence of consciousness was not required in order for Terry Schiavo to exist. I am making the same point as I was with intention earlier. There are many parts to being human, and none of those parts is essential. We can always find an example of a human without that part.

The problem with this is that you ignore what others intellectualized about her situation. Those that were pro-her-death, argued that she was sans consciousness! Those who wanted her to live argued that she possessed consciousness.

Because we have different bodies and our other constituent parts are different as well. Our histories are different, our feelings are different, our perceptions are different.

You failed to answer my question. You merely told me that we were, in fact, different. I asked “why?”

You know what I think about words like “essentially”. It is a different assembly because at least one of the parts, the keys, has changed. It is similar, but not the same. It is similar enough to be still called a car, but ‘car’ is a wide category covering a large number of disparate assemblies.

In order to be a car, it must come with keys? Often used “cars” are purchased without their keys. The purchaser must then get a set of “keys” made. But, the State title agency still believes that a “car” changed possession. In fact, they don’t give two cents about “keys”. Nowhere in the definition of car, in the legal descriptions of most, if not all, States, is there any mention of “keys”.

I have not read all translations, but the one I use most is Narada Thera’s. There are many translations available on the Internet as well.

Would you give me a link?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that causation is causation. It is the same causation whether it applies to physical, spiritual or both objects. There is only one type of causation which applies to all.

Rossum:

Can you describe this “one type of causation”?

Everything inside our heads can be an illusion. We can never directly know that which is outside our heads. All of our knowledge is mediated through our senses which inevitably introduce an element of distortion and error. The illusion is to ignore the existence of that distortion and error.

This is simply wrong. Accurate memory retrieval is essential to good police forensics, in capturing a guilty criminal, among other things. In fact, despite the controversy, it is generally felt that memory retrieval under hypnosis is an par excellence way to obtain accurate retrieval. But, this is not the point you are arguing, nor is it the point I wish to debate. The point I wish to debate is, “We can never directly know that which is outside our heads.” It clearly looks like the hypothesis of accurate memory retrieval under hypnosis is sound, except where the subject is subjected to suggestibility. This would suggest that what is memorized in our snapshots of reality is quite accurate. And, this is a hypothesis with which I concur. Our senses are quite capable of accurately recording our surrounding situations.

If your account was correct, we should be completely unable to trust even eye-witness accounts of a crime, or event.

Furthermore, whenever anyone possesses nothing but illusion in his mind, he is generally moved to the 5th floor!

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
*
Everything inside our heads can be an illusion. We can never directly know that which is outside our heads.*

After you have banged your head against a brick wall a few times, if you can, hobble on over and tell me the brick wall could have been an illusion.

 

[rossum]

You failed to answer my question. You merely told me that we were, in fact, different. I asked “why?”

We are different because we have different histories. Your previous lives are not the same as my previous lives. What we bring forward from your respective sets of previous lives is different.

Would you give me a link?

Narada Thera is at Amazon.

For online versions try Access to Insight for translations by Buddharakkhita or Thanissaro.

Can you describe this “one type of causation”?

Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, Chapter One - Examination of Conditions. The best translation I have found is by Jay Garfield.

This is simply wrong. Accurate memory retrieval is essential to good police forensics, in capturing a guilty criminal, among other things. In fact, despite the controversy, it is generally felt that memory retrieval under hypnosis is an par excellence way to obtain accurate retrieval. But, this is not the point you are arguing, nor is it the point I wish to debate. The point I wish to debate is, “We can never directly know that which is outside our heads.” It clearly looks like the hypothesis of accurate memory retrieval under hypnosis is sound, except where the subject is subjected to suggestibility. This would suggest that what is memorized in our snapshots of reality is quite accurate. And, this is a hypothesis with which I concur. Our senses are quite capable of accurately recording our surrounding situations.

We may be able to accurately retrieve memories, however those memories were initially ordinary sense (name removed by moderator)uts. Those sense (name removed by moderator)uts are where the error originates. A memory of an internally generated fantasy, such as a dream, way well be accurate but nobody takes our memories of dreams as accurate reflections of the real world.

All our sense (name removed by moderator)uts are incomplete. We cannot see as well as an eagle so all of our sight (name removed by moderator)uts are to some degree inaccurate and faulty.

If your account was correct, we should be completely unable to trust even eye-witness accounts of a crime, or event.

Studies have shown that eye-witness testimony is not always reliable. Usually forensic evidence is preferred. See jstor.org/pss/1228141 for just one example.

Furthermore, whenever anyone possesses nothing but illusion in his mind, he is generally moved to the 5th floor!

If the illusion agrees with everyone else’s illusion then he can live where he likes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

After you have banged your head against a brick wall a few times, if you can, hobble on over and tell me the brick wall could have been an illusion.

That is not direct either. Sensors in your skin return nerve impulses to you brain. All you are actually sensing are those nerve impulses, nothing more.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That is not direct either. Sensors in your skin return nerve impulses to you brain. All you are actually sensing are those nerve impulses, nothing more.

rossum

The brick wall may well be an illusion, but experience is not.

 

[rossum]

The brick wall may well be an illusion, but experience is not.

The illusion is thinking that the experience of the brick wall is actually the brick wall.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The illusion is thinking that the experience of the brick wall is actually the brick wall.

rossum

Perhaps, but one is having an “experience”, even if the details of that experience are an illusion.

 

[JDaniel]

We are different because we have different histories. Your previous lives are not the same as my previous lives. What we bring forward from your respective sets of previous lives is different.

Rossum:

We believe differently: we believe that each of us is caused as a brand new being. We believe that our form was educed from primary matter by way of the prerequisites supplied by our parents. We believe that each of us is a new creation of God’s and that He can create transcendental multitudes of us. We have no need to be bugs, slugs, leaches, or amoeba. We have no need to call ourselves ‘gods’ when we are distinct precious souls, and therefore, god-like descendants of God. Therefore, I did not have a previous life. I am different because God can and did differentiate us. Does that somehow work within the scheme of Buddhism?

We may be able to accurately retrieve memories, however those memories were initially ordinary sense (name removed by moderator)uts. Those sense (name removed by moderator)uts are where the error originates. A memory of an internally generated fantasy, such as a dream, way well be accurate but nobody takes our memories of dreams as accurate reflections of the real world.

And, no one in their right mind would ask us to do so. That is not a ‘real’ expectation of a sane person. It is a ‘real’ expectation of an aberrated person.

All our sense (name removed by moderator)uts are incomplete. We cannot see as well as an eagle so all of our sight (name removed by moderator)uts are to some degree inaccurate and faulty.

Even the eagle’s sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is incomplete. We see with wide lenses. They see with narrow lenses. Because they are equipped with telescopic eye sight. Yet, our memorized pictures of each and every snapshot taken by our wide-angle senses is memorized in unbelievable detail. Furthermore, not only do we store the color-visio snapshot, we simultaneously store tone-audio, scent-olfactory, texture-tactile, and flavor-taste. All in remarkable detail. In American homes, on Thanksgiving Day, we get a good idea of this, as it is all stored in detail. When that is re-newed, we know it’s another Thanksgiving. Also, we are able to recall past Thanksgivings, with all of their details almost perfectly, under circumstances Scientologists would call ‘auditing’. Any differences being only with regard to those senses that we do not use as prominently as the others. I would not call that “inaccurate and faulty.” I would call that ‘incredibly vivid’ given our predilections.

Studies have shown that eye-witness testimony is not always reliable. Usually forensic evidence is preferred. See jstor.org/pss/1228141 for just one example.

For every URL you can provide I can provide a dissenting opinion one. As I said, I do not want to get into this debate. There’s no benefit.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

We believe differently: we believe that each of us is caused as a brand new being. We believe that our form was educed from primary matter by way of the prerequisites supplied by our parents. We believe that each of us is a new creation of God’s and that He can create transcendental multitudes of us. We have no need to be bugs, slugs, leaches, or amoeba. We have no need to call ourselves ‘gods’ when we are distinct precious souls, and therefore, god-like descendants of God. Therefore, I did not have a previous life. I am different because God can and did differentiate us. Does that somehow work within the scheme of Buddhism?

As I see Christianity, each new person is not “brand new”, you all carry some baggage from the past: original sin. Each new person in Buddhism is not brand new but carries some baggage from the past: karma. The Christian version is collective while the Buddhist version is individual but both involve causes in the past having effects in the present. Likewise in both systems our future lives after death are affected by causes in our current life: we go to heaven or to hell or wherever. In Buddhism, although we do talk loosely about our ‘past lives’ and ‘future lives’ those people are not us. We are not the same from moment to moment in our current lives, let alone between different lives.

Yet, our memorized pictures of each and every snapshot taken by our wide-angle senses is memorized in unbelievable detail.

We cannot memorise detail that was never there in the first place. All we can remember are the details that our senses presented to us. We cannot remember many smells that are present in our environment because our noses are not sensitive enough to pick up those smells in the first place. Those smells cannot be remembered because they were never sensed by us in the first place. Our dog might remember those smells, but not us.

rossum

 

[dawkins]

atheism is clearly true