Epos Nix on 18/1/2007 at 17:21
I'm curious as to how Dawkins views non-theistic religions like Buddhism. While there is no great creator in Buddhism, the religion still requires a good amount of faith in the Buddha and his teachings. Is this still somehow dangerous to mankind, even though Buddhism is probably the most placid religion on Earth?
SD on 18/1/2007 at 17:29
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I had a brief look over Irreducible Complexity, looks like some component of the Intelligent Design argument. So that's still basically looking for evidence of a god that actively intervenes in the workings of the physical universe - something I've tried to make clear I tend towards personally rejecting anyway.
Right, well your idea of a God that doesn't personally intervene in the workings of the universe is very much a minority opinion. The large majority of people on the planet believe in an interventionist God.
Quote:
Think of a universe that proceeds entirely due to natural laws, which were put down by a creator. Is that creator still something you can probe with the scientific method?
A God that ignited the Big Bang and then let events take their course? Well he'd be somewhat redundant for one thing; we can explain the universe without recourse to that sort of God. Purely working from Occam's razor, his existence is rendered somewhat less likely. And if he's a being of intelligence (as he surely must be, to deliberately create a universe, whether or not he intervenes in it) he still needs his own origins explaining; he's still as irreducibly complex as Yahweh or Allah, and he makes as much (or rather, as little) sense as they do.
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I'm curious as to how Dawkins views non-theistic religions like Buddhism. While there is no great creator in Buddhism, the religion still requires a good amount of faith in the Buddha and his teachings. Is this still somehow dangerous to mankind, even though Buddhism is probably the most placid religion on Earth?
Quote Posted by Richard Dawkins
Unless otherwise stated [in the book], I shall have Christianity mostly in mind [of the three Abrahamic religions], but only because it is the version with which I happen to be most familiar. For my purposes the differences matter less than the similarities. And I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life.
:)
Epos Nix on 18/1/2007 at 17:49
Quote:
Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life.
Kinda odd considering Buddhism gets its philosophic systems from the idea that karma exists and indeed determines what manner of being you will be reborn as upon death (ie. reincarnation). To a lot of people these ideas are harder to wrap their heads around than that of a great creator. And indeed if you can ignore these ideas and look at Buddhism as merely an ethical system, surely you can do the same for Christianity?
jay pettitt on 18/1/2007 at 18:04
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
...that's still basically looking for evidence of a god that actively intervenes in the workings of the physical universe - something I've tried to make clear I tend towards personally rejecting anyway.
Hey, we agree on stuff. :D
If a God exists I see no reason why science shouldn't be able to observe it. But I think we are just swerving towards Briareos H's "A system which can be proven consistent and complete is inconsistent. Here's your god" Our understanding of the universe is dynamic. As long as it is then there is room to hide a deity figure in there if you're determined enough.
Also what StD says - The Bible talks about a God that intervenes in the physical world. There's no reason why you shouldn't think otherwise of course.
SD on 18/1/2007 at 18:07
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Kinda odd considering Buddhism gets its philosophic systems from the idea that karma exists and indeed determines what manner of being you will be reborn as upon death (ie. reincarnation). To a lot of people these ideas are harder to wrap their heads around than that of a great creator. And indeed if you can ignore these ideas and look at Buddhism as merely an ethical system, surely you can do the same for Christianity?
If you're a Buddhist, "you" will not be reborn after death. Reincarnation doesn't work like that in Buddhism; there is no "soul".
No doubt Dawkins sees Buddhism as rather less of a threat to humanity than theistic religions. At its very worst, Buddhism is a creative way of getting people to be nice to each other and the planet. Christianity and Islam at their very worst is something I think we are all familiar with. Apples and oranges innit.
Epos Nix on 18/1/2007 at 18:13
Quote:
If a God exists I see no reason why science shouldn't be able to observe it.
Unless God has the same relationship to man that man has to, say, The Sims... that is man certainly has an influence on their little virtual universe but were they aware they'd never have the slightest clue as to who or what we are, never mind that theirs is a world made of binary and ours of matter.
Quote:
If you're a Buddhist, "you" will not be reborn after death. Reincarnation doesn't work like that in Buddhism; there is no "soul".
Yes... it's just far easier to say and understand "you" than saying your spiritual or karmic essence.
Fingernail on 18/1/2007 at 18:20
With all this anti-Christian sentiment and misrepresentation, Jesus will be spinning in his grave! :rolleyes:
Chimpy Chompy on 18/1/2007 at 19:34
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
If a God exists I see no reason why science shouldn't be able to observe
it.
So then, once again, how does a process for understanding our physical universe let us observe something outside of, and not bound by the laws of, that universe? What kind of testable feature or phenomena are you looking for?
Ok you have a point about being determined to fit a god in somewhere. But then Stronts and Dawkins seem determined to argue against a god wherever it may be. :p And I do still think there are some why-type questions the scientific method can't answer now, and may or may not be able to in the far future. Hopefully it will but, for now, I'll stick a creator in there. Maybe the day we understand it all is the day we become godlike ourselves?
Aircraftkiller on 18/1/2007 at 19:43
wtf scientology
