Actually Haidt claims that we share the same moral intuitions and they’re merely packaged differently, such as liberal or libertarian.

Will assist with this to the degree desired, after you pay the bill. — Hippyhead

You’ve really outdone yourself this time, Hippyhead, and that’s a tall order. You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding and perhaps regain some semblance of credibility.

Ok, but first — Hippyhead

:lol:

If only you could be so frugal with what bounces around in your head. But please, you were going to show there I demonstrate a lack of understanding.

Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points
— praxis

Except that you don't understand the issues, so it's not an insult, but rather a factual statement. — Hippyhead

So show where I demonstrate a lack understanding.

The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly
— praxis

And if you were actually motivated by what you claim to be motivated by, reason, you would surgically identify whatever aspects of religion (which you are clearly very interested in) you can make constructive use of, and then throw the rest in the trash bin. It's entirely possible to do this without in anyway whatsoever becoming religious.

Every day you go to thread after thread on forum after forum to toss all the things you don't like about religion in the dumpster, which is rational. But then you jump in the dumpster and endlessly roll around in all the discarded trash which you have already identified as being of no use to you, which is NOT rational.

If it should be true that there is absolutely nothing about religion which you can make constructive use of, ok, fair enough. Lots of people feel that way. I have no complaint, to each their own. Should this be the case, then what is rational about spending every day for years in religion threads???

The thing is praxis, you want to lecture everyone about reason, but you don't actually believe in it yourself. That's why everyone finds you so tiresome. You're a heretic. To your own position.

Here's what reason looks like. Shit or get off the pot. Find something in religion you can make constructive use of and focus on that, or let religion go, and redirect your time and intelligence at more promising targets.

And, if I actually believed in reason, I would be taking all the good advice I've been getting to walk away from you and leave you to your fate. But, I'm as nutzo as you are, so no worries, it's safe, the circus merry-go-round can go on, endlessly round and round and round, to nowhere. — Hippyhead

Cute caricature that shows how your mind works.

The crazy thing is that the only thing I’m doing in this topic is committing the cardinal sin of arguing that Buddhism is a religion. :lol:

Elegant arguments from highly informed members revealing the limitations of the title have since been presented at great length. — Hippyhead

Right, the limited view that has been freed by a modern perspective, where we can see Buddhism as a philosophy, science, art, or indeed, a religion.

You seem to highly value a modern perspective, despite the terrible loss of an intimate relationship with reality and our deep existential plight. I guess it’s worth the price of admission?

Whinny ad hominem attacks
— praxis

Don't see any. — Hippyhead

No doubt. Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points is a feeble minded attempt to invalidate anything I say and a logical fallacy.

I see no attempt by you to understand the issues. I cannot see the point of your approach and clearly it prevents you from learning anything. I will not respond to you from now on. — FrancisRay

How many times do I need to point out the obvious? I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy. That is the core of the topic, after all. If you don’t want to respond to my points then don’t. Whinny ad hominem attacks are not an argument.

You appear to have bought the propaganda that people may have completely different values.

"Left" is useful because it can describes a certain set of ideas or values. — BitconnectCarlos

Discrete identities are useful for politicians to manipulate an unsuspecting public, so in order to not be fooled, it may be better to focus on the ideas and values expressed in what others say and do.

What does that have to do with religious followers being misled or otherwise taken advantage of? You think that doesn't happen in Buddhism? Awwwww, you're so adorably innocent.

Half a second with SLX should tell you which side of that fence he stands on. — BitconnectCarlos

I honestly couldn't say. So pragmatist or ideolog?

Complete non sequitur.

In any case of course they're trying to shame you into (theoretically) voting Biden here. Good American liberals when push comes to shove gotta shut up and get in line, no other way about it. — BitconnectCarlos

I haven't followed all of it but from what I gather it was a matter of trying to determine if SLX stood on pragmatic ground, as in the lesser of two evils or 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' or ideological ground, a refusal to participate in a system that is beyond reform. A resolution would be interesting, assuming there isn't already one and my assessment is at all accurate.

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.↪praxis

Okay. So this is your definition of religion. In this case Buddhism is not a religion. — FrancisRay

I assume you're claiming this because Buddha's are not considered Gods and therefore not an ultimate authority. What matters is that in order to be part of the religion, the authority has access to knowledge or experience that others do not, and that their authority is beyond questioning. Those who question are heretics, outsiders, or otherwise not considered part of the tradition.

People often point to the Kālāma Sutta and say something like, "see, the Buddha says to not take anything on authority and simply try it out for yourself." Notice that nowhere does the doctrine entertain the possibility that the doctrine could be mistaken in any way or invite criticism or reform. In philosophy, science, and art, revision is an integral part.

What I said was that where a religion is the search for truth it will lead to truth. The religions you speak of do not quality. They depend on faith and belief and usually deny even the possibility of truth and knowledge. — FrancisRay

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.

Thus there is something called the 'Perennial' philosophy, which includes (Middle Way) Buddhism, (Philosophical) Taoism, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian, Jewish and Islamic mysticism and so forth. Monotheism is rejected as being false. . . . . — FrancisRay

Of all posters in this topic I would expect you to be the first to acknowledge a difference between spirituality or mysticism and religion.

Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. — FrancisRay

Lol, true religions are true and false religions are false. That’s your response, essentially? If so, well, okay, but then why do false religions still work?

In a word, to gotcha! :razz:

Praxis - "Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false."

What of Earth has Jonestown got to do with anything? We're talking about Buddhism. — FrancisRay

You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead.

You say 'religion works'. How do you know this? What do you even mean by it? — FrancisRay

Religion binds a community with common values, narrative, and goals. This has great survival value, evolutionarily speaking.

How can it be beside the point if religion reveals truth? — FrancisRay

There are literally thousands of religions. Can they all be true? Of course they can’t. Therefore truth must be beside the point, right?

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy
— praxis

You and I both would seem to have a natural talent for getting under people's skins. The two of us together is annoying squared. Let's just take a break from engaging. — Hippyhead

:razz: Do whatever you must.

If it were the only reason, or even a primary reason, then why would you be wasting your time arguing here, something that you've described yourself as "burdensome," rather than putting effort into realizing Dharmma?
— praxis

I attempted to address this above. Alcoholics are the primary people in AA meetings. Thought-o-holics (like me) are often those most interested in exploring these topics. It's typically the sick who show up at the hospital.

Not a fixed rule which includes everyone, but true often enough to merit mention. — Hippyhead

The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly. Typically they behave as though the solidarity of their tribe religion was of the utmost importance.

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy, in this topic, who has blatantly used ad homs against me and so not undeserving, but I've quickly reviewed and can't say that I've expressed or felt hostility towards you. Impatience perhaps, but not hostility. And I did not mean to suggest any nefarious ulterior motives on your part, only an inclination to support a meaningful belief system.

In your case I believe that less pharmaceutical technology would be most beneficial.

In your case I believe that pharmaceutical technology would be most efficacious.

The meaning of 'Buddhism' is unlimited for you? If that were true we wouldn't be able to talk about it because you wouldn't be able to identify what I was talking about.
— praxis

Sure! The Dhamma is beyond words. That's why we practice it; to realize the Dhamma. — TLCD1996

That's one reason, and perhaps not even a very strong reason. If it were the only reason, or even a primary reason, then why would you be wasting your time arguing here, something that you've described yourself as "burdensome," rather than putting effort into realizing Dharmma? Because that is NOT the only reason you practice. It is the same with all religions. It's pointless to deny that religion fulfills human needs other than some grandiose notion of realizing emptiness.

I still don't think I understand, because it seems that the philosophies people often describe have a kind of authority figure attached (e.g. Aristotle), and these philosophies often seem concurrent with metaphysical theories (and I wonder if those theories could be easily discarded if we really held tightly to the philosophy's constraints). — TLCD1996

Are you claiming that Aristotle is the Philosopher King and that only his philosophy is philosophy? That is a very strange and misguided idea.

The Buddha (specifically, Sakyamuni Buddha) is something of an authority figure, but it's not like he's God, or even the Buddha. — TLCD1996

Does an ultimate authority need to be a God? I don't think so. In any case, if a Buddha is not an ultimate authority then perhaps they may have all been misguided or even plain con-men, and this possibility is in accord with Buddhist doctrine.

I know, the relationship is definitely dramatized, but still a good story and it's informative and promotes ecology.

Oh, sorry, your answer is “thought operates by a process of division” then?

My understanding is that concepts are formed from a rather large amount of sense patterns and though the patterns are singled out they build to form larger patterns in a hierarchical fashion, like letter > word > sentence > paragraph etc. So all the information that a concept (like Buddhism) is comprised of is in our minds and is not a single thing, just like outside the mind. :razz:

If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds?
— praxis

When you're not distracted by being a Gotcha Monster you can ask good questions. This is one. — Hippyhead

So good that you’re unable to answer it, apparently.



Again, I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy, primary in pointing out two glaring contrasts:

• In philosophy there is no ultimate authority such as there is in Buddhism.
  
  
• There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding.

Praxis wants to nail down what "thing "Buddhism is — Hippyhead

Don't be silly. I'm merely arguing that it's a religion rather than a philosophy.

he wants to confine it within a noun, mostly so he can debunk it because that's his goal on every subject. — Hippyhead

Ad homs are a stupid way to argue.

Buddhism is not a single thing. Nor is Christianity. Nor is anything in all of reality, except in our minds. — Hippyhead

If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds?

If we are a practitioner we soon find out what it is... — FrancisRay

Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false.

it makes no difference to Buddhism what we call it. — FrancisRay

Right, it makes a difference to Buddhists and others.

If religion requires dogma, authority and belief then it is not a religion. If science must depend entirely on sensory-data then it is not a science. If philosophy requires endless confusion then it is not a philosophy. If art requires paint and a canvas then it is not an art. — FrancisRay

Silly strawman. Believe it or not, essential characteristic features can be identified in things.

It would be more helpful to ask whether it works, whether it reveals truth, whether it brings liberation etc. — FrancisRay

Religion works, but not in the way most people think, in my opinion. Religion may or may not reveal truth, that's beside the point. Religion necessarily promises salvation, delivering on that promise is beside the point.

I never mentioned a 'modern' perspective and wouldn't know what the phrase means. — FrancisRay

Do you think that premodern people viewed Buddhism as a religion, a science, an art, and whatever else?

In all instances that I can imagine it's used in an identifying manner, which is necessarily limiting.
— praxis

Okay? Maybe your imagination is limited :lol: — TLCD1996

The meaning of 'Buddhism' is unlimited for you? If that were true we wouldn't be able to talk about it because you wouldn't be able to identify what I was talking about.

why are you interested in calling it a religion or philosophy? — TLCD1996

I believe that it's a religion and am arguing that it is.

I am weary to say Buddhism is a "religion" when "religion" is being used in an unnecessarily limiting manner. — TLCD1996

In all instances that I can imagine it's used in an identifying manner, which is necessarily limiting. Calling it "dhamma vinaya" is likewise limiting. Identifying anything is necessarily limiting. Your condition of necessity seems completely arbitrary and meaningless.

What I find laughable is how in one corner we have Wayfarer and Hippyhead lamenting the loss of an intimate relationship and our existential plight...

What I'm getting at is that modernity, 'being modern', is in some ways an existential plight. Pre- moderns had a different mindset and relationship with the world, as they intuitively felt a kinship to it - not that they would have expressed it that way, or even been aware of it. — Wayfarer

And in the other corner, we have you and Hippyhead claiming that unless viewed from a modern lens we miss the significance of Buddhism (or any religion?) and sell it short.

:lol:

Suspicion?

Buddhism is rather more sophisticated than a hammer.. — FrancisRay

That’s not saying anything. A hammer is more sophisticated than a rock. That doesn’t mean that a hammer isn’t designed or best utilized for a particular purpose.

If you’re serious then you could backup your claim by explaining how not seeing Buddhism as an art or philosophy sells it short and misses its significance.

Because Gods can be infinitely cruel.
— praxis

Thank you for chanting your usual dogmas. — Hippyhead

It stands to reason that if there can be a virtual heaven then there can be a virtual hell. Imagine, for example, if someone programmed your digital Diane Lane to be a zombie that nibbled on you for a few hours or days, or weeks.

Why inhabit an often cruel real world when one can instead inhabit a wonderful imaginary realm where we are gods? — Hippyhead

Because Gods can be infinitely cruel.

For me Buddhism would be a religion, a science, an art and a philosophy, same as all the 'mystical' traditions. To see them as just one of these would be to miss their significance and sell them short. . . — FrancisRay

This is like saying that only seeing a hammer as a hammer, rather than a paperweight or artwork, sells it short. A hammer is designed to be a hammer and best fulfills its purpose in being used as a hammer. Indeed, using it as a paperweight sells it short and mistakes its significance.

There's a lot to unpack there that seems to be glossed over in a "religion or philosophy" argument. — TLCD1996

Or perhaps the gloss evades the argument. No problem, for my part.

One point of clarification though...

But isn't Stoicism based on a premise that reason is divine? — TLCD1996

I might be persuaded by an argument that sapiens don’t actually possess the capacity of reason, in this day and age, regardless of its nature.

You appear to believe as all religious followers believe: that their religion delivers on its promise and all others are false (no other religious practice can be abandoned because they’re all false).
— praxis

Sure, though I don't understand the part of your post that's in parentheses. — TLCD1996

You mentioned that blind attachment to practice/doctrine is abandoned at some point, suggesting that this somehow distinguishes it from religion. This is how religions are, however. Do Christians go to church in heaven, for example? Once the promise is fulfilled the practice is superfluous, and because all other religions are false they are never fulfilled. Only our own religion can be fulfilled. That is the unspoken assumption, as I read your statement.

The point, in the end once more, is that these things are unworthy of attachment and aren't worth hanging onto. — TLCD1996

Given this sentiment, I don't understand your reluctance to accept that Buddhism is a religion. My suspicion is essentially that you would like to consider it 'reality' and religion does not reflect reality.

I'm curious: what's your purpose for calling it a religion or philosophy? — TLCD1996

What is the purpose of distinguishing an apple from an orange? There could be many purposes. More than I could list here.

And do you think that faith in one's philosophy of choice would render it a religion? — TLCD1996

I'm currently interested in stoicism and have a kind of shmuckish practice going. Stoicism is not a religion because though there are authorities, there's no hierarchical ultimate authority. Also, there's no metaphysics that are essential to the philosophy/practice. In religion, metaphysics and ultimate authority go hand in hand and are both essential.