How about shifting the burden of explaining this whole business to biology. Biological continuity happens through DNA and I wouldn't be wrong in saying there's an identity I share with my ancestors - they, even if in the slightest sense, live in me. From this angle if I were to suffer/enjoy on account of the deeds of my ancestors it wouldn't be completely incoherent.

Also, the doctrine of Original Sin seems to make sense on this view.

But even then, what exactly are the strands that go from one life to another? — Banno

Religion is inherently about morality. Any moral system is heavily dependent on responsibility, culpability, fairness, justice, reward and punishment. All of these become meaningless in the absence of a person (soul?) that is responsible for an action and that bears the repercussions of the action. Punishing/rewarding Tom for Dick's actions is simply incomprehensible.

"What you are is what you get." — Michael Ossipoff

Ok, but do you think reincarnation is true? Does reincarnation require an indestructible soul?

I'm not saying Karma and rebirth are true. As a hypothesis Buddhism is better than Abrahamic religions.

Fine thought. As you can see the theory can have wide ranging implications. Some/most of them borders on the realm of what might be called superstition. I think if this is given serious thought it'll be to open Pandora's Box...something I don't want to do.

It's literally bullshit, — Bitter Crank

Consider this. Hitler was saved from drowning when he was about 4. A small insignificant event and look what happened.

(Y)

Also...I'm interested in the consequences of The Butterfly Effect in a broader context, especially religion, the supposed domain of superstition.

Christianity, particularly the Medieval theologians, has delved deeply into addressing the problem — Thanatos Sand

Yes and what's there solution?

Original sin? Hereditary sin doesn't make sense.

Free will? What of the evil of natural disasters?

Buddhist Karma quite easily explains evil as retribution for past bad deeds.

Secondly, if bad people are getting good fortune and good people are getting bad fortune, than your justice system isn't a justice system at all. — Thanatos Sand

But...there's a next life where good is rewarded and evil punished. Karma doesn't necessarily mean we have to reap our rewards or suffer punishment in this life.

Definitions are statements expressing the essential nature of something. — Harry Hindu

I like that definition. Thanks(Y)

I'm no guru. I'm kinda lost. Anyway, that's my problem.

One, you don't know there is no omnibenevolent God — Thanatos Sand

I was only comparing religions on the scales of coherence. In this case, Buddhism to Abrahamic religions. I don't know if God exists but Buddhism is a more coherent theory than, say, Christianity, so far as solving the problem of evil is the issue.

Secondly, evil is not just bad deeds catching up with someone, they are also the bad deeds affecting other people. — Thanatos Sand

Yes, but everyone is getting their Karmic reward/punishment. Every person in your life, even the tiny speck of dust that enters your eye, is a Karmic messenger, there to give you happiness or pain based on your past deeds.

Karma is a justice system where everyone is both the criminal and the judge, reward/punishment being handed out in complex BUT perfect ways.

Oh wait that is impossible! — Vajk

I see. So, you think it's an impossible task to define ''meaning''. That means the paradox has no solution. Agree?

(Y)
@StreetlightX(Y)

The paradox is still unsolved.
1) How do we define ''definition''?
2) What is the meaning of ''meaning''?

Any attempt to answer the above questions would proceed as follows:

1. The definition of ''definition'' is...
That's a circularity that generates a paradox: we have to define ''definition'' but to do so we need to know the definition of ''definition''.

2. The meaning of ''meaning'' is...
That too is circular and generates the paradox of having to know the meaning of ''meaning'' before we can assign it meaning.

Of course, there's always the case of the straw that broke the camel's back — CasKev

That's another way to look at it.

I think the butterfly effect is a reductio ad absurdam, an unending infinite regress — Cavacava

How so?

The perturbance from one slow sand-grain meteor can make the difference between a planet remaining in orbit or being ejected permanently into deep space. — noAxioms

That's scary. Are you serious?

The butterfly-causing-a-hurricane is a figure of speech -- not to be taken literally — Bitter Crank

As noAxioms said, it's to be taken literally.

There's an underlying math — tim wood

I don't understand the math here.

That is a problem because it has led to some pernicious claims — Andrew4Handel

Which truth has escaped from this predicament. Even religion, the pinnacle of goodness, has pernicious consequences. Look at the news. That said, I agree that evolution is demoralizing, to say the least.

Truths can be good or bad. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed but truth is not obliged to make us happy. That's what I mean and perhaps better expressed in true phrases like ''bitter truth'', ''sweet lies'', etc.

Now your left with the terrible behaviour and no purpose or divine protection or hope. — Andrew4Handel

Please read above.

Also, it'd help to understand that science is just a POV. It tends to transform our worldview, giving it a materialistic flavor and there's no room for spirituality or religion. However, science has, say, a 500 year history and despite ''progress'' I think it still has a blindspot where possibilities multiply. I think scientific knowledge is filtered through peer review and we have access to only knowledge that has been confirmed. There's a sort of confirmation bias in this because journals only publish hits and not the misses. If we take the trouble to do some research it's not long before we find a lot of imperfections in science. At its best, science is an approximation.

I don‘t know if the meaning of meaning is meaning, or not. Perhaps there is an other meaning, perhaps not! I don‘t know if the writings on this wall of the Cave are Sophisticated or not, do you — Vajk

Are you referring to the Plato's Cave? How does that affect the paradox of meaning?

Sorry but if it's not too much trouble can you give me a synopsis of your understanding of definitions and how it addresses the paradox in my OP.

Still, there are words which need to have a fixed meaning and ''meaning'' is one of them. So, the paradox of having to know the meaning of ''meaning'' before you can define is still unsolved.

Without meaning being permanent, communication is impossible. As you correctly pointed, it needs consensus, and that's a way of making meaning permanent.

Anyway, I don't see how, in the world you describe, the paradox is solved. You still need to know the meaning of ''meaning''.

So, you do agree that superstitions may be true. Causality may not be so simple. Whether the outcome is favaorable or not isn't what bothers me. The real possibility of superstition being true is frightening. It could lead to many undesirable consequences, a simple example being exterminating black cats or witch hunting.

And the fact that scientific theories lead up to superstition is very disturbing.

They are two distinct concepts. — A Son of Rosenthal

What's your understanding of definition?

But meaning is not at all exhausted by definitions. — StreetlightX

I see. I was using ''meaning'' and ''definition'' as synonyms. Apparently, there's a significant difference. Sorry for sending you offtrack. Anyway, learned something. Thanks.

The paradox arises out if the neverending desire for truth where there isn't any — Rich

Sounds Zen! Can you descend and answer the question at my level? Thanks

No. Meaning is not an equality claim. Meanings are not even claims at all. Hence the link — StreetlightX

How so?

See here

Unless there's an equality there's no meaning.

God is defined as an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent being.

1) Pray to God

2) Pray to the omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent being

Do you see any difference between 1 and 2?

No

That's because God = omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent being. See?

Also synonyms are definitions.

Synonym is a word/phrase with the same meaning as the word in question. So, it's the same thing - definition, synonym, all the same.

The problem you pose isn't one. — StreetlightX

Ok. Do you agree that ''means'' is an equality claim, as in x means y can also be expressed as x = y. Is meaning just another way of naming?

Yes, if you read my discussion with other posters, I have described a simple process by which we gain understanding of what ''mean'' means.

I'm no linguist but allow me to hazard a guess...

It all began with naming physical objects, e.g. the sound wa-ter is the name of the stuff one drinks, etc. In naming we draw an equality between the sound/word and the object it refers to. Therefrom it's relatively easy to understand the meaning of ''meaning''. It's simply an equivalence and we may say, when defining, such and such is such and such.

I read the link. It describes how language functions but it doesn't really explain/solve the issue I raised

How is it a paradox? Even though our attempts to describe the meaning of "meaning" may be circular, this isn't how we first learn a language. Definitions only work if we already know the meaning of certain words, and so we must learn the meaning of these initial words another way — Michael

To know the meaning of any word, first we must know the meaning of ''meaning'' and that can't be done without resorting to a circular definition. Try it:

The meaning of ''meaning'' is <insert your definition>.

In my defense...

X means Y establishes an equality for the simple reason that, in a sentence, substituting one word with its definition shouldn't change the meaning of the sentence e.g.

1) There was ice on the road

2) There was frozen water on the road

So, definition is a means of stipulating an equality between words/phrases. This is what I mean.

In this reading we can make sense of ''means'' as establishing/attempting to establish an equality.

:(

What's your theory then?

Here's what I think.

I don't know the history of language and how it evolved but to make an educated guess...

I think language evolved in very basic terms and that, to me, means giving names to physical objects like water, wind, sun, etc. In this basic sense of ''meaning'' is the idea of equality. People were simply ''naming'' things. From there, we can take a step forward and say ''definitions'' are, in essence, naming albeit in a sophisticated manner.

What say you?

Clarify please

By not knowing the meaning of ''meaning'' I don't know what either ''know'' or ''mean'' means:P

Yes, however, I can only know what knowing means if I know what ''mean'' means.

1. While defining a word we use the structure ''x means y'' where x is the definiendum and y is the definiens

2. To understand 1, we have to know the meaning of ''means''.

3. So, as per the structure given in 1, we have to say: ''means'' means <insert definition>''

3 is obviously impossible because we're using a word, ''means'', without knowing its meaning.

Circular

Evolution is a truth. Truth doesn't imply good/bad. I think that's the gist of all philosophy. Seeking wisdom, things good and true, is futile for that very reason.

There may not be a central authority in Buddhism BUT it still has some truths that are universal in all its various branches. For instance, all Buddhists believe in Karma and Samsara. Let's begin from there.

I believe these two central precepts (Karma and Samsara) don't make sense without the existence of an indestructible soul.

What is the meaning of the word ''sense''?

Samsara and Karma do not explain away the problem of evil and you haven't shown they have. — Thanatos Sand

In the absence of an omnibenevolent god, the problem of evil is moot. The evil in the world, suffering in other words, is just your past bad deeds catching up.

And it does not fit well within the general notion of causation, since there is no proof tying together the effects of events to a mystical moral judgment of causes. — Thanatos Sand

There's no proof of course. But it's not that much of a stretch to extend causation that is apparent in the physical world to the realm of morality. May be it is but the point is Karma sticks to the accepted truth of causality. Even Abrahamic religions are ''true'' in this regard that moral actions have consequences.

But that's a circular definition: ''sense'' and ''meaning'' are defined in terms of, well, meaning.

My concern is whether Buddhism is a coherent system or not.

Samsara and Karma are coherent because

1. It explains away the problem of evil which plagues Abrahamic religions


2. It fits well with the general notion of causation

However, one key element for Samsara/Karma to be meaningful is the continuation of the soul. Otherwise 1 and 2 would be undefined. Buddhism is just a long-winded version of the maxim ''you reap what you sow''.

Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. — Hanover

Yes, but there are many cases where instant Karma is absent. Unsolved crimes are aplenty.
To cover these cases Buddhism needs souls to reincarnate.

By way of footnote, the cosmological theory popularly referred to as 'big bang theory' comes awfully close to a literal 'creation ex nihilo'. — Wayfarer

(Y)

Without reincarnating souls, Karma doesn't make sense at all. Karma, to work, clearly requires continuation of a soul. Otherwise, innocent people are going to get hurt.

Again because God isn't relevant to this system of belief. You might as well point out that Jesus didn't say anything about emptiness and ask why — praxis

Fine. However, God pictures in Hinduism. While Jesus was unaware of emptiness, Buddha was in the know about divinity. He(?) even downgraded the Hindu gods into the realm of Samsara. Surprisingly, he never did the reverse of floating the idea of a supreme God a la Abrahamic religions. Why?

@Wayfarer

Their religious goal, says the Buddha, is laughable (hassaka), vain (rittaka) and empty (tucchaka).

Strange. I would think someone who calls another's sincere efforts hassaka fits the description of rittaka and that, in turn implies the so-called ''achievements'' of the Buddha as tucchaka.

A long time ago, I read Buddha describing himself as a lotus flower, growing in pristine lakes and also in the dirtiest of pools, yet remaining unstained. I was a little boy then and it didn't sit well with me. Now I understand why. I saw the self-assured vanity of the Buddha. That said, the truths he taught stand on their own - they're great.