Purpose?

[Burl]

Funnily enough it was the tone (I read into) Jen's posts to Paul that inspired this thread. I see it lives elsewhere also.

 

I never took philosophy Burl. Did you question the professor in your first lecture?

Having said that I have been in science in some shape or form the last 46 years, so I am qualified to question your philosophy of science first lecture ... don't you think?

Philosophy of Science was a required course for my BS. Too late for you my friend, but you can catch up with Wikipedia.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

[SteveS55]

 

 

 

"There are many teachings or disciplines in Buddhism and a variety of methods, but they are geared to solving life problems temporarily and permanently because they deal with the mind and go beyond its relative thinking patterns. Many Christians have become Christian Buddhist and better Christians because of these practices and many Buddhist have become Buddhist Christians."

 

I have often puzzled over this, Soma. My own experience of this is rather anecdotal, because I only know of a few people who actually have "swapped" one for the other, or shared traditions. Thomas Merton comes to mind, as well as Alan Watts. I happen to be another (Christian to Buddhist), but I have no real credibility.

 

The only thing I can come up with is that Christianity and Buddhism both share a contemplative tradition, and doctrinal differences are of little concern. Both are experiential, which is somewhat suspect to a lot of Christians. But, beyond the experiential, or perhaps fulfilling the experiential is the non-conceptual - an understanding, intuition or realization of the way things are without the possibility or even the necessity for verbal/written expression. This is why I believe "practice" in all of its manifestations among both traditions is of such importance.

 

Just rambling a bit!

 

Steve

[romansh]

Philosophy of Science was a required course for my BS. Too late for you my friend, but you can catch up with Wikipedia.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

 

Just skimming through the article ... philosophers are not aligned and it does not even mention noumena.

[tariki]

I have often puzzled over this, Soma. My own experience of this is rather anecdotal, because I only know of a few people who actually have "swapped" one for the other, or shared traditions. Thomas Merton comes to mind, as well as Alan Watts. I happen to be another (Christian to Buddhist), but I have no real credibility.

 

The only thing I can come up with is that Christianity and Buddhism both share a contemplative tradition, and doctrinal differences are of little concern. Both are experiential, which is somewhat suspect to a lot of Christians. But, beyond the experiential, or perhaps fulfilling the experiential is the non-conceptual - an understanding, intuition or realization of the way things are without the possibility or even the necessity for verbal/written expression. This is why I believe "practice" in all of its manifestations among both traditions is of such importance.

 

Just rambling a bit!

 

Steve

Steve, happy that you have joined the Ramblers. As I see it the core message/claim of Christianity is that the Universal became particular in one moment of time.

 

As far as I can see, this is very much the heart of every Faith.

 

The problem is that once the claim is made that "Jesus" is uniquely unique (!) the heart and core message is distorted and becomes the seed of division.

 

Theologically, the Incarnation can be much better understood from a Mahayana perspective. The Greeks have had their day.

[Burl]

Steve, happy that you have joined the Ramblers. As I see it the core message/claim of Christianity is that the Universal became particular in one moment of time.

As far as I can see, this is very much the heart of every Faith.

The problem is that once the claim is made that "Jesus" is uniquely unique (!) the heart and core message is distorted and becomes the seed of division.

Theologically, the Incarnation can be much better understood from a Mahayana perspective. The Greeks have had their day.

You are not wrong. I would like to hear more about this Mahayana perspective.

[tariki]

You are not wrong. I would like to hear more about this Mahayana perspective.

 

Hi Burl, I've posted this link before. Heavy going and if you grasp more than half of it please explain it to me!

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/keenan.htm

 

My own understanding was helped by my reading up of the zen guy Dogen, and I ran a thread on him on the "Other Wisdom Traditions" sub-section.

 

Essentially, as I see it, it is about the "birth of Christ" in us, a truly incarnational Faith. My own experience is simply that any such birth is of grace, not works..........in Pure Land terminology, "things are made to become so of themselves" beyond our own calculations.

[Burl]

Thank you, Tariki. Excellent essay by Rev. Keenan on a Mahayana interpretation of Christianity. A bit turgid for a simple meditation, but fine content.

 

Summarized for easier digestion, the good Rev. assumes that Jesus was indeed God and mankind is not. His observation, arrived at via Mahayana philosophy, is that the nature of Christ can also be described as an emptiness rather than as a consubstantial instance of humanity and divinity per Chalcedon.

 

It is an argument for the uniqueness of Jesus, but the semantics are novel. It echos Paul in Phillipians, who also uses a metaphor of emptiness.

 

Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

7 rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8 And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

 

The introduction also goes into much more detail about the influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity I mentioned previously.

[tariki]

Thank you, Tariki. Excellent essay by Rev. Keenan on a Mahayana interpretation of Christianity. A bit turgid for a simple meditation, but fine content.

Summarized for easier digestion, the good Rev. assumes that Jesus was indeed God and mankind is not. His observation, arrived at via Mahayana philosophy, is that the nature of Christ can also be described as an emptiness rather than as a consubstantial instance of humanity and divinity per Chalcedon.

It is an argument for the uniqueness of Jesus, but the semantics are novel. It echos Paul in Phillipians, who also uses a metaphor of emptiness.

Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

7 rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8 And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

The introduction also goes into much more detail about the influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity I mentioned previously.

Thanks Burl

 

Uniquely unique? Thomas Merton, who crossed boundaries, spoke of God "being His own gift",

 

Anyway, thanks.

[Burl]

Thanks Burl

Uniquely unique? Thomas Merton, who crossed boundaries, spoke of God "being His own gift",

Anyway, thanks.

Can't blame anybody for not being able to 'eff' the ineffable!

[Burl]

Funnily enough it was the tone (I read into) Jen's posts to Paul that inspired this thread. I see it lives elsewhere also.

 

I never took philosophy Burl. Did you question the professor in your first lecture?

Having said that I have been in science in some shape or form the last 46 years, so I am qualified to question your philosophy of science first lecture ... don't you think?

Sorry. I have been privately instructed by our admin Joseph to not communicate with you in the first person. Concepts and ideas only svp.

 

Please rephrase your question in third person and feel free to contact me personally via PM.

[SteveS55]

Thanks for posting the essay, Tariki. It was a bit dense but I was able to slog through it retaining a portion of it. I kind of don't think Mahayana Christology is going to catch on anytime soon....too much doctrinal water under the bridge by now. And, thinking about that, it's a shame that we tie things up in such knots that it just becomes too much trouble to unwind them or start over.

[romansh]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎01 at 10:02 AM, Burl said:

Sorry. I have been privately instructed by our admin Joseph to not communicate with you in the first person. Concepts and ideas only svp.

 

Please rephrase your question in third person and feel free to contact me personally via PM.

Somebody with forty six years of working in science etc ... would they be qualified to question a philosophy professor? For that matter is there anyone who "should" not question a philosophy professor or for that matter any other professor or even teacher or god forbid a fellow contributor on a forum?

[Burl]

53 minutes ago, romansh said:

Somebody with forty six years of working in science etc ... would they be qualified to question a philosophy professor? For that matter is there anyone who "should" not question a philosophy professor or for that matter any other professor or even teacher or god forbid a fellow contributor on a forum?

Number of years "working in science" is meaningless.  Is a person who has worked in nutrition for 46 years qualified to question a chef or a farmer?

[romansh]

You missed my extended point Burl ... is a student not allowed to question a mistress or master?

I am questioning you right now. This is an opportunity for both the pupil and teacher to learn. Should not one think so... to put it in the third person?

[Burl]

What is specifically it that seems difficult?  Science is based on data collected through repeated, controlled observation.  If there is no data, no repeatability or no observation there is no science.  

[romansh]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

What is specifically it that seems difficult?  Science is based on data collected through repeated, controlled observation.  If there is no data, no repeatability or no observation there is no science.  

There is absolutely nothing difficult about this. Who is qualified to question a professor who apparently can deduce or perhaps induce stuff without controlled observation or data? My question is not difficult Burl.

[Burl]

What is your point, Rom?  This discussion was over a month ago.

Do not ask a question.  Make a constructive statement and we can proceed from there.

[romansh]

5 minutes ago, Burl said:

What is your point, Rom?  This discussion was over a month ago.

Do not ask a question.  Make a constructive statement and we can proceed from there.

My point is, it is OK to ask professors and people in general to clarify/defend their point..

Why should I not ask a question Burl? Perhaps if you could give a constructive answer we could proceed from there.

[Burl]

So your question is, "Is it proper to ask a question?"?

Yes, but the person being questioned is not obligated to respond.

[romansh]

On ‎2017‎-‎05‎-‎31 at 5:06 AM, Burl said:

Only a subset of reality can be examined scientifically. If you have spent any time in real science, you know that scientists usually examine only very minute aspects of reality. They are sharpening knowledge to a wire edge, not casting fishing nets into the unknown.

I just went, beginning of June, to the Imagine No Religion 7 conference. There I heard Lawrence Krauss give a synopsis of his book ,,, The Greatest Story Ever Told - So Far. And whilst on holiday I read the book. Now it is clear that things like the origin of the universe can be studied scientifically. We do that even unknowingly when studying light.  I must admit I am intrigued by quantum phenomena. It is where the very small meets the universe in cosmology. So plainly the assertion we cannot scientifically study the origin of the universe is false. Scientists piece those very minute aspects of reality together into a bigger picture.

We might agree that the efficacy might be limited, but then you are discussing this with a devout agnostic. But I also use solipsism as excuse not to fail.

Now as to your assertion that that science only deals with physical noumena ... fair enough. But then the immaterial (I presume this is the other subset you refer to) is written in the physical (assuming for a moment the immaterial exists). We can only see this immaterial (again if it exists) in the material. I have no reason to assume this immaterial subset.

To quote a famous philosopher, Marx (out of context) ... Beyond the Alps lies more Alps. And the Lord Alps those that Alp themselves.

 

[romansh]

36 minutes ago, Burl said:

So your question is, "Is it proper to ask a question?"?

Yes, but the person being questioned is not obligated to respond.

Absolutely ... I have no way nor do I wish to force anyone to answer questions. Having said that, when we don't answer questions in a debate and dialogue thread the whole thing becomes fairly pointless; don't you think?

[Burl]

54 minutes ago, romansh said:

Absolutely ... I have no way nor do I wish to force anyone to answer questions. Having said that, when we don't answer questions in a debate and dialogue thread the whole thing becomes fairly pointless; don't you think?

 

No.  A debate is a comparison of facts and observations.  When one party avoids making definitive statements and simply needles the other party that is trollage and not debate or discussion.

The fundamental requirement is to always put new information on the table.  Oxford style debates function quite well without any questions whatsoever.

[Burl]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I just went, beginning of June, to the Imagine No Religion 7 conference. There I heard Lawrence Krauss give a synopsis of his book ,,, The Greatest Story Ever Told - So Far. And whilst on holiday I read the book. Now it is clear that things like the origin of the universe can be studied scientifically. We do that even unknowingly when studying light.  I must admit I am intrigued by quantum phenomena. It is where the very small meets the universe in cosmology. So plainly the assertion we cannot scientifically study the origin of the universe is false. Scientists piece those very minute aspects of reality together into a bigger picture.

We might agree that the efficacy might be limited, but then you are discussing this with a devout agnostic. But I also use solipsism as excuse not to fail.

Now as to your assertion that that science only deals with physical noumena ... fair enough. But then the immaterial (I presume this is the other subset you refer to) is written in the physical (assuming for a moment the immaterial exists). We can only see this immaterial (again if it exists) in the material. I have no reason to assume this immaterial subset.

To quote a famous philosopher, Marx (out of context) ... Beyond the Alps lies more Alps. And the Lord Alps those that Alp themselves.

 

Haven't read the book.  It may be possible to scientifically determine the physical conditions which are required for the creation of matter but only if matter is actually created.

This "piecing together" of science by unscientific means is where the dragons lie.  Extrapolation, generalization, correlation, probabilities and other methods of informed guesstimation are often incorrectly passed off as science.

 

[romansh]

Debate and dialogue, Burl. Debate and dialogue.

While debates and dialogue can work without questions *Oxford style" or not they are certainly not precluded.

The fundamental requirement is not new information but accurate information and if it is new accurate information for me that is a bonus.

Now if the other party feels needled by being asked questions, I might speculate that on occasion that feeling is actually a result of cognitive dissonance. Either way that party that is feels it is being trolled has many options and one of them is to answer the question openly and accurately.

 

 

[romansh]

1 minute ago, Burl said:

Haven't read the book.  It may be possible to scientifically determine the physical conditions which are required for the creation of matter but only if matter is actually created.

This "piecing together" of science by unscientific means is where the dragons lie.  Extrapolation, generalization, correlation, probabilities and other methods of informed guesstimation are often incorrectly passed off as science.

 

And when the pieces don't fit when more evidence turns up then a new hypothesis is formed. Science is a process not an end point.

Science is not without error or backtracking. But contrary to assertions like cannot assess free will I would argue it can. There might be certain things we don't know how we might understand certain concepts, but that does not mean at some future date we won't.

Extrapolation is where we can falsify a hypothesis or even a theory. It is where scientists put their appendages on the chopping block.

Correlation is a measure of how well the data fits the hypothesis.

Probabilities ... eg statistical mechanics is a powerful for understanding the behaviour thermodynamics. You will have to explain why this is here dragons lie.