Seriously, science and religion together at last!

Okay wait, before you vault this DF, hear me out.

Buddhism, old school, the Therevada tradition comprising only the words of the buddha himself, and not the 2500 years of folklore on top, is unique among world religions.

Firstly, it's atheistic. Niiice. Secondly, there is no soul, no afterlife and no alternate reality beyond what is immediately apparent to your senses. Sensible. Thirdly, it is exclusively concerned with the individual training him-/her-self to observe reality objectively without the instinctive fantasy/denial which comprises most of human thought. Logical, captain.

In conclusion, all scientists ought to be buddhist and all buddhists ought to be scientists. :hippy:

 

What seems sensible to you may seem erratic to others.

 

Yeah but most Buddists don't drink, according to the Fifth Precept of Buddism so google tells me. Obviously drinking yourself into a paralytic and insensate stupor is better than spiritual enlightenment any day.

Also, I sincerely hope there isn't an "after" picture to that one Muro posted.

 

Hm, touche.

 

In all seriousness, Buddhism seems like the best pick for a reasonable religion. Trying to observe reality objectively, or "mindfulness" as I've heard it called, is a useful skill for anyone to develop as it gives you a more analytical approach in general; and it's a cornerstone in cognitive behavioural therapy for a whole host of mental illnesses. Also, I doubt Buddhist extremists would try and kill anyone.

Realistically though if I could I would pick a completely irrational unreasonable religion. Who wouldn't want some cushy afterlife where everything is great? Believing in something that provides comfort and happiness never seems like a bad thing to me, especially when your beliefs are harmless and don't encroach upon what others choose to believe. Trouble is, I would never be able to believe in something like that myself as there is no scientific basis to any of it.

 

I wouldn't call what you just presented religion, ytzk. I'd call it philosophy.

 

That's what she said! And by 'she' I mean the Roman Catholic Church; apparently it doesn't count as a religion unless it includes an imaginary friend. Another point in its favour, I'd say.

It still works more effectively as a religion than, say, Stalinism or Dawkinsism because it doesn't simply delete religion, it effectively replaces it. Also, it counts as religion for tax purposes.

So come on everbody, join the program! Come out of your misery and get some hot throbbing Dhamma inside of you!

 

So we're treating the religious like substance addicts by replacing their harmful religion with a less harmful philosophy?

That gives me a chuckle.

 

The philosophy is incidental, really. It's more of a user's manual for the nervous system. It doesn't have to be a part of your world view at all; you can even keep taking your regular fix of make-believe.

It is simply a technique for integrating a rational mind into an irrational body so that you don't keep running in circles, teaching creationism, blowing up buildings etc.

The philosophy, such as it is, is that what makes life consistently miserable is the picture in our heads of how it ought to be. The religion bit comes from how awesome it is when you learn to accept reality, but buddhism itself is all about the 'how to' of accepting reality.

In the end, it's about practise, not discussion.

 

Well alright - I misunderstood you before because of some gap in my memories.

I had read The Teachings of the Buddha myself, and even had a point by point discussion on them in my world religions class...so I did actually know Buddhism can be used as a supplement to any person's life, religious or areligious. I think I got muddied up at;

Even though you had already said clearly enough what you meant in your first post.

One thing the Dalai Lama has said himself is that if some aspect of science were to contradict the teachings of Buddhism, then Buddhism would have to change.

 

If everyone keeps agreeing with me the only way we'll achieve a shitstorm is if I react to Zanza's veiled reference to my past erratic behaviour.

Gnnnrrrraaargh... nah I just don't care.

If WS were here I'm sure he'd say it was ad homomen or something, and completely irrelevant to my argument.

If Xyle were here we'd have a field day but since we're all being reasonable, I'll just say 'meh'.

 

So, for clarity, it wouldn't be a problem for any existing religous person to also be a Buddhist? Apart from worshippers following religions with sanctions like "You shall have no other gods before me" which - even though Buddhism is atheistic - I would imagine would make most Christians disapprove of also following Buddhism regardless.

 

Well, specifically, I would say that vipassana yoga, as taught by the buddha, is super useful for anyone and need not conflict with anyone's religious beliefs... just like science in general.

Of course, many Christians would consider it the work of satan or somesuch. Then again, they might think that about science too.

Short answer: yes, it's cool to be a buddhist, whatever your religion.

Long answer: learning how to disregard fantasy in favour of reality no doubt threatens a lot of irrational and political religious groups. Too bad for them: reality is reality and that's a fact.

 

But you must remember that their reality is our fantasy.

If the focus is to realize the impermanence of all things, then certain religious folk will never try it. The whole point of going to heaven is that it's supposed to be an eternal paradise. I don't see why people think that if all heaven is, is forgetting your time alive and living eternally to bask in God's glory.

Still, if the focus is to realize the impermanence of all things, that's where I'm at.

 

The goal is detachment. In that sense the focus is first and foremost, to realise the impermanence of your self. The trick is getting it to sink in to your deepest subconscious. So vipassana yoga simply demonstrates to your ego, daily, that every feeling is only a bunch of molecules.

Truly religious people from the Abrahamic religions have as their goal service to God, the lawmaker of the universe, and obedience to those laws despite their temptations. The goal of giving up one's ego for the truth - natural law - is not a contradiction. The sticking point is that they are conditioned to accept the world view as taught, without observing for themselves. Of course, this inevitably evolves to suit the political structures and the desires of those in power.

It's the essential difference between experiencing reality and learning about it: As Jung said, the first master drew a square inside a circle and said, 'this is how the world is' and the first student copied the picture without understanding it, and so religion has been wrong ever since.

Whatever cosmology or language you use, vipassana yoga is good thinking. Even science, which strives to be objective, is filled with examples of warped theories accepted more on the basis of culture, politics or economics, than cold, hard facts. And buddhism, just like any other religion, is overlaid with centuries of people missing the point entirely.

This technique is not about explaining reality, it's about teaching yourself to see it. Therefore a true scientist ought to be a buddhist and vice versa.

 

Well you've imagined an ideal society in which no one person warps what they know or think they know to serve some ulterior purpose, i.e. to maintain the status quo.

As great as a world like that would be, people tend to be selfish and generally dislike discovering they're wrong, so much so that it's exactly how the human brain is wired.

Dopamine is a chemical released in the brain during learning, which helps your body associate positive experience with feeling good. Orgasms, drinking, getting high, and being right cause a release of dopamine - which ultimately improves the sensation of the experience, but generally causes a person to strive toward that one goal and ignore what other possibilities are available during the release of that neurotransmitter.

Dopamine is responsible for people with like opinions spending time with one another, as well as things like confirmation bias and compulsively looking at pornography.

 

Yeah life is suffering and being sensible is a skill that needs a lifetime of practise, if not longer.

The ideal world I imagine is one in which everyone practises vipassana, and every baby learns it from the teat.

I'll reiterate: vipassana yoga lets you put your biochemistry in perspective, so you're not just chasing endorphins or fleeing pain, you're seeing what's there and doing what is best for everyone.

 

I understood as much. I haven't quite figured out how to make meditation work for me, but I'm more aware of my own shortcomings as a human and certainly try to work around them.

 

What you need is to join our cult.

It's like bootcamp, but the opposite: instead of shouting at you to exercise, they silence at you to sit still.

Seriously you guys.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbfHERChbmw[/youtube]