Design

[ChineseCatholic]

This is all shorthand of another variety.

Might be some sensitivity on my part. Chestertons quote is the outcome of 19th century scholarship about Buddhism and Asians in general as being inscrutable, mystical, anti-ration all, etc. in the case of the Buddhists there were a bunch of stereotypes running around that they were either a bunch of sorcerers or nihilists.

It’s like the equivalent of Ancient Romans saying “Ooh Christians meeting in secret in Catacombs for their Secret Rituals …Cannibalism perhaps?”

Or currently with those radical Islamists stating - Catholics are polytheist because we believe in 3 gods.

At base minimum the only thing I can hope for is that people are somewhat respectful of my religion. Respect == Assent. They can criticize me for thinking I eat the body and blood of Christ every sunday. I can give a response. Whether they accept it or not - at the very least we are talking about something substantial. No straw mans, no half slights, we are speaking things that are true.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In any case this discussion of Buddhism is off topic.

 

[STT]

This is the philosophy forum, so I will approach it philosophically. In Buddhism everything changes, there is no permanence to be found anywhere. Change is necessary for salvation/enlightenment. Heaven/nirvana has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum. If it cannot change then there can be no attainment of nirvna.

Change is difference in time. At one time an object has properties X. If it changes then at a later time it has different properties, Y. An object with different properties has changed. At one time “rossum is eating breakfast”. At a different time “rossum is sleeping”. Rossum has changed because rossum has different properties at different times.

If something has changed, then the old version has disappeared and the new version is now present. The two versions cannot be the same (unless you can eat breakfast while asleep). The old version was impermanent.

Change requires impermanence of the old version. As with Heraclitus’ river, the old river is impermanent because the new river is not the old river; the old river has ceased to exist.

All action requires change. At least change from “I will act” to “I am acting” to “I have acted”. Hence anything that acts must change in time and so is impermanent. It must be impermanent since otherwise it would have opposed properties. It cannot have acted in the past and simultaneously not have acted in the past.

Since all things change, then all things are impermanent. A single thing cannot have opposed properties. If it appears to have opposed properties, then it can always be analysed into components. A chessboard is simultaneously black and not-black. The paradox is resolved by analysing the chessboard into smaller components: black squares and white squares.

One of the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism is how far they take this analysis.

HTH

rossum

Thanks.

 

[rossum]

No, they knew it to be spherical. Immovable? A whole different thread.

I was not aware that Eratosthenes wrote a book of the Bible. As for immovable, see 1 Chronicles 16:30 for one example.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

. . . My hand touches a marble table. It feels cold hard and strong. Quantum physics tells me my senses are not perceiving the Truth, that there is Voidspace in the table between the atoms. Nothing I can do on a sensory level will change that perception. I am in essence, experiencing reality incorrectly - unable to perceive the truth. Buddhists . . . pity all of us for being completely and totally confused about the actual nature of reality. . . the idea of Reality not being what it Seems" . . . Buddhism is about Knowledge.

First of all, welcome.

:twocents:

If any religion is about knowledge, it would be the Catholic Church. Buddhism, at least from a more Zen approach to the Divine, is about realization - just sitting. The transcendent truth contains us. The marble table is as hard as the experience of one’s shin against its side. Approach it using concepts related to subatomic processes and you have a very different understanding, that associated with quantum physics. Either way, one is not experiencing reality incorrectly, but rather darkly, relating to it as a thing out there, separate and not as a part of the self-other relationality that constitutes our being in the world.

 

[buffalo]

Wrong question to ask them.

It’s like asking a Muslim who died for their sins?

The concept is meaningless in their worldview.

You know I sometimes think it’s better if Christians in general reviewed our history of interacting with Hellenistic philosophical schools like Stoicism or Neoplatonism - because that interaction is closer to what we have with them then say or relationship with Islam or Judaism.

By virtue of coming from a similar sources we have common coinage of terms - ideas that are at the least similar.

I can’t say the same for Buddhism - again depending on which branch we speak of

If there is no difference then they are selfsame.

 

[buffalo]

I was not aware that Eratosthenes wrote a book of the Bible. As for immovable, see 1 Chronicles 16:30 for one example.

rossum

Isaiah 40:22 He who sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, the inhabitants of which are like grasshoppers, stretches out the heavens like a cloth, spreads them out like a tent to live in.

 

[rossum]

Isaiah 40:22 He who sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, the inhabitants of which are like grasshoppers, stretches out the heavens like a cloth, spreads them out like a tent to live in.

A circle is not a sphere. Isaiah used חוּג, chug or “circle”. Ancient Hebrew had a word for “ball/sphere” דור dur which was not used in Isaiah. A flat earth can be a circle or a square. IIRC the Sumerians thought of it as a circle while the Babylonians preferred a square (“the four corners of the earth”). The Bible writers merely followed the civilisations round them.

rossum

 

[ChineseCatholic]

First of all, welcome.

:twocents:

If any religion is about knowledge, it would be the Catholic Church.

I never said our Church didn’t have a place for knowledge, all I said is our emphasis doesn’t lay there. The Criterion for being worthy of Heaven isn’t a comprehensive understanding of Thomas Aquinas philosophy - its Faith.

If it were KNowledge you would turn us all into Gnostics.

Buddhism, at least from a more Zen approach to the Divine, is about realization

Not surprised you would pick Zen as your example. It and Tibetan Buddhism are the only two versions Westerners really have some inkling about it.

So let me ask a set of questions

1.) Where does Zen fit in the history of Buddhism?

2.) What accounts for its historic rise in popularity? Its heyday around the time of the other practice schools of Buddhism - what are the practice schools reacting to?

3.) Is Zen really Buddhism?

**“Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism.” ** is the latest salvo in that centuries long debate.

And if can acknowledge Zen is an innovation, doesn’t that mean we’d be better served in analyzing the topic by referring to the words of Siddartha Gautama himself?

palicanon.org/

Or would you agree perhaps that a person wanting to study Christianity would be best served by ignoring the Bible and picking up the Book of Mormon?

Because in using Zen as your model of Buddhism, you are bypassing -alot- of the history and philosophy of Buddhism and take the school famous for throwing out the Sutra/Suttas as being axiomatic…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Call me agnostic.

A Catholic who explains Buddhism is like an atheist who explains Catholicism.

Rather suspect?

In any case, what does Buddhism have to do with Design?

Who has hijacked this thread?

See post #127.

 

[edwest2]

Though ID is a god-of-the-gaps theology - only some things are designed. God didn’t design mud, rocks or anything which is explained naturally, God only designed things not yet explained (or which the ID fan doesn’t realize have been explained).

God made everything. The Universe He made from nothing. Mud is dirt and water, rocks are fragments of larger rocks and so on.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God made everything. The Universe He made from nothing. Mud is dirt and water, rocks are fragments of larger rocks and so on.

Ed

Right!

Evolution would not be possible without the mud God designed for the womb of life.

 

[buffalo]

A circle is not a sphere. Isaiah used חוּג, chug or “circle”. Ancient Hebrew had a word for “ball/sphere” דור dur which was not used in Isaiah. A flat earth can be a circle or a square. IIRC the Sumerians thought of it as a circle while the Babylonians preferred a square (“the four corners of the earth”). The Bible writers merely followed the civilisations round them.

rossum

Circle of the Earth

In any case all one had to do was look at the horizon of a body of water.

 

[edwest2]

Right!

Evolution would not be possible without the mud God designed for the womb of life.

There was a bit of satire where a scientist was talking to God. The following is not exact, but captures the idea.

Scientist to God: I’m going to take this dirt and make something grow.

God to scientist: Get your own dirt.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There was a bit of satire where a scientist was talking to God. The following is not exact, but captures the idea.

Scientist to God: I’m going to take this dirt and make something grow.

God to scientist: Get your own dirt.

Ed

:thumbsup:

 

[rossum]

God made everything.

God made everything except Himself, or are you telling us that God was created?

rossum

 

[inocente]

inocente;14558623:

Though ID is a god-of-the-gaps theology - only some things are designed. God didn’t design mud, rocks or anything which is explained naturally, God only designed things not yet explained (or which the ID fan doesn’t realize have been explained).

God made everything. The Universe He made from nothing. Mud is dirt and water, rocks are fragments of larger rocks and so on.

You substituted “designed” with “made”.

There was a bit of satire where a scientist was talking to God. The following is not exact, but captures the idea.

Scientist to God: I’m going to take this dirt and make something grow.

God to scientist: Get your own dirt.

Usually it’s farmers and gardeners who take dirt and make things grow. There must be lots of Catholic scientists who help them improve productivity. Maybe the guy who invented that “satire” is above getting his hands dirty.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Not surprised you would pick Zen as your example. It and Tibetan Buddhism are the only two versions Westerners really have some inkling about it. . .

Well, you got me there, a westerner through and through. I was drawn to the simplicity of Zen when, as a math-physics-chemistry theoretical science guy, it became apparent that what I knew and whatever else I could ever discern using the methods I had learned, that I could not explain what was most real - myself. In modern scientific terms the universe is absurd. It is of no surprise then, that at least one influential scientist, limited to that restricted vision of reality, would assert “philosophy is dead”. This here and now is reality. Within our daily relationships, directed towards love, we find Holiness. I guess if you scratch the surface of what appears to be a western Buddhist, what you’ve sometimes got is a poorly catechised Catholic.

To wrench the post back on track:
This story has some relevence to the OP, in that the current “scientific” view of humanity’s creation is what can happen when we get lost in the fantasy world of materialism.
There is so much more to existence than the few handfuls of physical properties, constants and relationships.
While able to explain some of how matter behaves, they are embarrassingly lacking in their capacity to grasp the nature of personhood.
In order to try to explain our creation, one needs an appreciation of who and what we are, and of the God who created us.
The idea of design incorporates the realities of meaning, purpose, personal existence, beauty, goodness and its counterpart evil, rationality, truth and love.
Ultimately, God is God, and while we may each have our pet theories about how we came to be, anything is possible because we are dealing with creation.

 

[tonyrey]

This belief grossly violates the principle of economy. Buddhists may take geat delight in superabundance but Occam’s Razor cuts the number to **One **

Non sequitur. Creating the universe and painting a person are completely different activities.

Occam’s Razor stops us multiplying entities beyond the minimum necessary. In the case of creators, the minimum necessary is obviously greater than one.

Why?

I would also point out that by Occam’s Razor a Pope is not necessary. Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Hinduism, to pick just two examples, have survived perfectly well without a Pope, so by your own logic one Pope is one too many.

Another non sequitur. The two situations are again completely different. The Creator transcends all created beings.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would also point out that by Occam’s Razor a Pope is not necessary. Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Hinduism, to pick just two examples, have survived perfectly well without a Pope, so by your own logic one Pope is one too many.

rossum

It is not for you (nor for Occam’s Razor) to decide whether a pope is necessary, or whether one pope is one too many.

This was decided by Jesus Christ who gave the keys to Peter.

By the way, from your own logic Hinduism is hopelessly polytheistic and certainly defies Occam’s Razor.