Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote:
I agree as the historical Buddha born 2,500 years ago stated the sole purpose of his teaching was to end human suffering and the path he recommended was the Eightfold Path. There were some scientific and metaphysical questions the Buddha refused to answer such as is the universe infinite or finite because such questions distracted people from this issue.

More parsimoniously; he didn't know.

JUST BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS DOESN'T MEAN HE DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

darwin2 wrote:I disagree with your statement that what Buddhist say and what most Buddhists do are entirely different things. There are numerous schools of Buddhism but all follow basic Buddhist beliefs like the three jewels of Buddhism, karma, rebirth, the eightfold path, the four noble truths and nirvana. I doubt if the above sect of Buddhism would deny any of these basic Buddhist beliefs.

You will note that I didn't say that there weren't common things throughout Buddhism, but there are major differences in each country due to local cultural practices that were syncretised into the local religious practices.

THIS DOES NOT CREATE A PROBLEM FOR BUDDHIST PRACTICES.

darwin2 wrote:As to the issue of Buddhist belief in gods, Buddhists believe there are an incalculable number of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in the cosmos that could be considered gods depending on how one defines gods.

No, I am quite expressly talking about gods. As I already made clear in my distinction - while these aren't tenets of Buddhism, they are beliefs held by people that happen to be Buddhist.

PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY gods.

darwin2 wrote: As far as one ultimate God and Creator, Buddhists believe in an ultimate reality and don’t use the term God.

Again, you are failing to make a distinction between what Buddhism says, and what Buddhists do.

ARE YOU SAYING BUDDHISTS DON'T PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH?

darwin2 wrote: I do believe in God the creator for the following reason. Although many scientists believe that the preponderance of scientific evidence implies that God does not exist I disagree. I believe the preponderance of scientific evidence clearly implies the existence of God. The space shuttle is the most complicated and sophisticated flying machine ever made by man. It would be hard to believe the space shuttle came into existence by natural selection. It is reasonable to imply that intelligent design was behind the creation of the space shuttle. Our universe is infinitely more complicated and orderly than the space shuttle and it is reasonable to imply that there was intelligence behind its creation and this intelligence I call God. And my belief is not incompatible with Buddhism.

Please, please, please spare us this regurgitated dross, darwin2. We have all heard it before, and it was pathetic enough the first 50,000 times you said it.

It's just Paley's Watch with a contemporary level of technology. I have addressed this canard numerous times already, and this is not the thread for rehashing this sorry argument.

On topic, however, you have just proven the point you said you disagree with. What Buddhism says, and what Buddhists believe are not necessarily synonymous.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT BELIEVING IN GOD CONTRADICTS MY BELIEF IN BUDDHISM?

darwin2 wrote:Critical thinking can and should apply to all things including internal states and metaphysical beings.

No dispute from me there, but again what should be and what is are two different things.

Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote:Good old common sense clearly implies a creator.

By very definition, common sense applies to common, routine things. By very definition, a creator of the universe is not such a common thing. It's an all too typical human failing to think that they can simply extend this experiential sense into every area of inquiry, including the cosmos.

If the universe followed our common sense, there'd be no need for further inquiry; we could sit in our armchairs and figure it all out in time for tea. Whereas the real geniuses of our species universally acknowledge that the universe is far queerer than is imaginable. Thus we devise tools that can improve our capacity to inquire; tools that are non-arbitrary, non-provincial, and non-egocentric.

If one only sees a fraction of a system, it may well look simple; if one's lack of knowledge provides only a shadow of the complete picture, it's still only natural to assume that the cognitive model is complete. What history has shown us is that this is unadulterated conceit, and there's always something round the corner to throw a spanner into our previously confident understandings.

Steve wrote:Huh. Skimmed the thread. I never heard of Buddhists even having a space observatory, let alone a space program. I think something must be amiss in the OP.

Oldskeptic wrote:A space shuttle is a complicated machine that people with the same technical knowledge that we have could reverse engineer and figure out what each piece was for and assign a purpose to each piece and figure out what the purpose of the machine was.

Many scientists are reverse engineering the universe, but it is kind of silly to say that gravity is for making galaxies, stars, black holes, planets, and keeping our feet on the ground. Or that electrons and quarks are for making atoms. A clear purpose for a space shuttle could be deduced by examining it. That cannot be said about the universe.

And saying that the purpose of the universe is for things like galaxies, stars, black holes, planets, and humans to exist in is like saying that a space shuttle is for computers, launch seats, space suits, and hydraulic systems to exist in. That is not the purpose of a space shuttle.

Not everything has a purpose, a rock has no purpose until someone chips off some pieces to make a sharp edge, but then its purpose is now as a tool to do a specific task.

I can hear it now: But God gives the universe purpose just like humans gave purpose the the space shuttle or the rock, but this does not work. You'd be trying to show that God exists because the universe has purpose while claiming that the universe has purpose because God exists. All the while not being able to explain any other way what that purpose is.

darwin2 wrote:

Steve wrote:Huh. Skimmed the thread. I never heard of Buddhists even having a space observatory, let alone a space program. I think something must be amiss in the OP.

Buddhists have the biggest observatory in the world. It is the universe and our telescopes are our eyes.

Steve wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

Steve wrote:Huh. Skimmed the thread. I never heard of Buddhists even having a space observatory, let alone a space program. I think something must be amiss in the OP.

Buddhists have the biggest observatory in the world. It is the universe and our telescopes are our eyes.

BIG difference, however, is telescopes look OUT and meditation (not sure how to qualify Buddhism, here) looks IN. The problem with religion (and here I DO include Buddhism) is it confuses that. It looks in at all the fantasies and monsters and gods and demons and treats them as if they were stars or rocks or whatever. In my own small experience they are the same in as much as we observe them. The difference is one group is actual and real. The value in observing them is not to manipulate them, as we like to do in science, it is to expose the observer by peeling away the things that are not real. In that sense they both work to explore the observer in us, but only the outside world is real. Gods, demons and fantasies have a reality in a different way and confusing this gets a lot of people killed. You can't pray away illness. Incense will not drive out bad luck. It has been tried for thousands of years without making a difference. But as we observe the outside world closely and learn how it works we are able to do things people never even imagined.

Exposing the observer is a skill that has to be learned. Some never even think about it. Some are born naturals. Everyone could benefit from exploring it. It is probably the most challenging goal in existence.

darwin2 wrote:
I agree with your statement that telescopes looks out and meditation looks in. Science and religion can be and should be complementary and compatible.

Regarding Extraterrestrial Intelligence, science through the rapidly increasing power of radio astronomy hopefully will find ET. I am very confident that this occurrence will happen soon. When this happens Buddhists will be thrilled.

Buddhism looks where science can’t.

Buddhists explore the inner worlds where such exploration can bring deep inner peace, confidence and wholeness of being. Buddhism and Science working together can and should make this world a better place to live in.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote:
I agree as the historical Buddha born 2,500 years ago stated the sole purpose of his teaching was to end human suffering and the path he recommended was the Eightfold Path. There were some scientific and metaphysical questions the Buddha refused to answer such as is the universe infinite or finite because such questions distracted people from this issue.

More parsimoniously; he didn't know.

JUST BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS DOESN'T MEAN HE DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

You will note that I didn't say that there weren't common things throughout Buddhism, but there are major differences in each country due to local cultural practices that were syncretised into the local religious practices.

THIS DOES NOT CREATE A PROBLEM FOR BUDDHIST PRACTICES.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

No, I am quite expressly talking about gods. As I already made clear in my distinction - while these aren't tenets of Buddhism, they are beliefs held by people that happen to be Buddhist.

PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY gods.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Again, you are failing to make a distinction between what Buddhism says, and what Buddhists do.

ARE YOU SAYING BUDDHISTS DON'T PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH?

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Please, please, please spare us this regurgitated dross, darwin2. We have all heard it before, and it was pathetic enough the first 50,000 times you said it.

It's just Paley's Watch with a contemporary level of technology. I have addressed this canard numerous times already, and this is not the thread for rehashing this sorry argument.

On topic, however, you have just proven the point you said you disagree with. What Buddhism says, and what Buddhists believe are not necessarily synonymous.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT BELIEVING IN GOD CONTRADICTS MY BELIEF IN BUDDHISM?

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

No dispute from me there, but again what should be and what is are two different things.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote:Good old common sense clearly implies a creator.

By very definition, common sense applies to common, routine things. By very definition, a creator of the universe is not such a common thing. It's an all too typical human failing to think that they can simply extend this experiential sense into every area of inquiry, including the cosmos.

If the universe followed our common sense, there'd be no need for further inquiry; we could sit in our armchairs and figure it all out in time for tea. Whereas the real geniuses of our species universally acknowledge that the universe is far queerer than is imaginable. Thus we devise tools that can improve our capacity to inquire; tools that are non-arbitrary, non-provincial, and non-egocentric.

If one only sees a fraction of a system, it may well look simple; if one's lack of knowledge provides only a shadow of the complete picture, it's still only natural to assume that the cognitive model is complete. What history has shown us is that this is unadulterated conceit, and there's always something round the corner to throw a spanner into our previously confident understandings.

You can believe what you wish. You can reject the common sense logic that clearly implies an Ultimate Designer. As a Buddhist I believe known facts about the universe imply an Ultimate Designer and my belief in an Ultimate Designer makes me conclude that our universe abounds with EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELIGENT BEINGS AND SINCE THIS THREAD IS TITLED “Does E.T. Intelligence Exist? A Buddhist Perspective” my posts are totally in line with this thread.

darwin2 wrote:
I agree with your statement that telescopes looks out and meditation looks in. Science and religion can be and should be complementary and compatible. Regarding Extraterrestrial Intelligence, science through the rapidly increasing power of radio astronomy hopefully will find ET. I am very confident that this occurrence will happen soon. When this happens Buddhists will be thrilled. Buddhism looks where science can’t. Buddhists explore the inner worlds where such exploration can bring deep inner peace, confidence and wholeness of being. Buddhism and Science working together can and should make this world a better place to live in.

Spearthrower wrote:That 'critical thinking' you speak of is regarding internal states, not metaphysical beings.

Steve wrote:

darwin2 wrote:
I agree with your statement that telescopes looks out and meditation looks in. Science and religion can be and should be complementary and compatible.

So why does religion feed peoples fears? Why does it make patently silly claims about reality? Why can't religion acknowledge its place along side science? I know you claim Buddhism does all this, but I think I would mostly disagree. Some Christians do this, some Muslims do this - it is a personal trait, not a religious trait.

UNFORTUNATELY SOME RELIGIONS DO FEED ON THE FEARS OF PEOPLE. THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL HELL IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE. MOST RELIGIONS, SPECIFICALLY THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS, CAN’T ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR PLACE ALONG SCIENCE BECAUSE THESE RELIGIONS FEEL THREATENED BY SCIENCE BECAUSE SCIENCE DISPROVES MANY OF THEIR RIDICULOUS DOCTRINES. THERE ARE SOME CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND JEWS THAT DO LEAN TOWARD SCIENCE ON SOME ISSUES BUT THAT NUMBER IS VERY SMALL.

Regarding Extraterrestrial Intelligence, science through the rapidly increasing power of radio astronomy hopefully will find ET. I am very confident that this occurrence will happen soon. When this happens Buddhists will be thrilled.

Again, some individuals who are Buddhists will be thrilled. Or are you claiming the religion of Buddhism will be transformed by this discovery? In which case I don't think that is Buddhism...

NO, I AM NOT CLAIMING BUDDHISM WILL BE TRANSFORMED. I AM CLAIMING BUDDHISM DOES NOT FEEL THREATENED WHEN CONTACT WITH ET IS MADE. THEY WILL SIMPLE FEEL ELATED.

Buddhism looks where science can’t.

I would rather say Buddhism is a training in "seeing". It is not object oriented as with "looking", which is what science is all about. Buddhism is more interested in "seeing"

YES BUDDHISM FOCUSES ON SEEING REALITY AS IT IS BUT THIS PROCESS ALSO INVOLVES LOOKING.

Buddhists explore the inner worlds where such exploration can bring deep inner peace, confidence and wholeness of being. Buddhism and Science working together can and should make this world a better place to live in.

I don't think Buddhism and science have any reason to collaborate at all. Science has no interest in inner peace, confidence and wholeness unless those qualities can be quantified and measured which tends to distract from inner peacefulness, confidence and wholeness. But neither are they incompatible.

Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

More parsimoniously; he didn't know.

JUST BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS DOESN'T MEAN HE DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

More parsimoniously, he didn't know.

YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT KNOW THE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL OF BUDDHISM THAT IS TO ATTAINN ENLIGHTENMENT AND NIRVANA. iT SEEMS YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF ENLIGHTENMENT MAKES YOU CONCLUDE HE DIDN'T KNOW.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

You will note that I didn't say that there weren't common things throughout Buddhism, but there are major differences in each country due to local cultural practices that were syncretised into the local religious practices.

THIS DOES NOT CREATE A PROBLEM FOR BUDDHIST PRACTICES.

They aren't Buddhist practices, which you would have noticed if you'd read what I said. However, each country considers these practices to be essentially Buddhist.

THAT IS QUESTIONABLE.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

No, I am quite expressly talking about gods. As I already made clear in my distinction - while these aren't tenets of Buddhism, they are beliefs held by people that happen to be Buddhist.

PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY gods.

Well, i can tell you what they're not by anyone's standards: elevated people.

ANYONE INCLUDES ALL THE PEOPLE ON OUR PLANET. I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE USED A DIFFERENT WORD HERE.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Again, you are failing to make a distinction between what Buddhism says, and what Buddhists do.

ARE YOU SAYING BUDDHISTS DON'T PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH?

More that their religious beliefs aren't grounded solely in Buddha's teachings.

THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IN GOD AND THIS BELIEF IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH BUDDHISM.

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Please, please, please spare us this regurgitated dross, darwin2. We have all heard it before, and it was pathetic enough the first 50,000 times you said it.

It's just Paley's Watch with a contemporary level of technology. I have addressed this canard numerous times already, and this is not the thread for rehashing this sorry argument.

On topic, however, you have just proven the point you said you disagree with. What Buddhism says, and what Buddhists believe are not necessarily synonymous.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT BELIEVING IN GOD CONTRADICTS MY BELIEF IN BUDDHISM?

Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

By very definition, common sense applies to common, routine things. By very definition, a creator of the universe is not such a common thing. It's an all too typical human failing to think that they can simply extend this experiential sense into every area of inquiry, including the cosmos.

If the universe followed our common sense, there'd be no need for further inquiry; we could sit in our armchairs and figure it all out in time for tea. Whereas the real geniuses of our species universally acknowledge that the universe is far queerer than is imaginable. Thus we devise tools that can improve our capacity to inquire; tools that are non-arbitrary, non-provincial, and non-egocentric.

If one only sees a fraction of a system, it may well look simple; if one's lack of knowledge provides only a shadow of the complete picture, it's still only natural to assume that the cognitive model is complete. What history has shown us is that this is unadulterated conceit, and there's always something round the corner to throw a spanner into our previously confident understandings.

You can believe what you wish. You can reject the common sense logic that clearly implies an Ultimate Designer. As a Buddhist I believe known facts about the universe imply an Ultimate Designer and my belief in an Ultimate Designer makes me conclude that our universe abounds with EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELIGENT BEINGS AND SINCE THIS THREAD IS TITLED “Does E.T. Intelligence Exist? A Buddhist Perspective” my posts are totally in line with this thread.

If you think common sense implies an Ultimate Designer, then your common sense is not 'common'.

As a Buddhist, you do no such thing. As a person you might believe those things, but you are not informed of that via Buddhism.

Finally, if you are laying claim to this set of beliefs, then you are not doing so from a Buddhist perspective and so it is off-topic.

Unknowing wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:That 'critical thinking' you speak of is regarding internal states, not metaphysical beings.

Where does one discover the difference, and what methodology should one use to go about understanding either of these?

(Btw it's a bit of a stretch to say critical thinking is given key importance, at least in the sense it seems to be used here.)

Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote:
I agree with your statement that telescopes looks out and meditation looks in. Science and religion can be and should be complementary and compatible. Regarding Extraterrestrial Intelligence, science through the rapidly increasing power of radio astronomy hopefully will find ET. I am very confident that this occurrence will happen soon. When this happens Buddhists will be thrilled. Buddhism looks where science can’t. Buddhists explore the inner worlds where such exploration can bring deep inner peace, confidence and wholeness of being. Buddhism and Science working together can and should make this world a better place to live in.

They can be complimentary up to the point where the religious believer, in their fervour for their inner truths, start extrapolating it out onto the cosmos. At that point, they overlap and religion enters the scientific domain... and we all know what happens then.

Incidentally, every post of yours makes me hold less trust in your claims about Buddhism. I know thousands of them, and they most assuredly don't espouse anything like you claim.

I think you're a Western Buddhist who has lapped up the parts they like, fitted it into their new age beliefs, and think that's actually what Buddhism says. Come over here to a Buddhist country and see how distant your claims are from the majority of Buddhists.