I was interested in this topic because the philosophical position of ‘karma’ and ‘past lives’ is something that is often swept under the carpet. I think viewing misfortune in this life as some kind of penance for misgiving in some imagined previous life is an abhorrent idea that essentially has some people categorised as ‘deserving their fate’ by simply being born with some form of disability or other. — I like sushi

As I already mentioned to you disease in children begs for an explanation if we are to consider them innocent of any wrongdoing (for obvious reasons) in this life. The principle of sufficient reason would require us to posit a previous life whose bad karma has now come back to bite these unfortunate people.

That said, this if you care to notice is just a hypothesis; if one feels that justice should be served and you find karma abhorrent, the onus is on you to come up with an alternative hypothesis. Can't eat your cake and have it too, oui monsieur?

Skill is, bottom line, an attribute of experts - those who've been in the business long enough to know the ins and outs of a craft/technique. Part of skill is the adaptation of body and mind to a technique and also vice versa. So, you work as though you're made for it and, conversely, as if it were made for you. The technique & tools meshes with your quirks and you do the same in return. What I mean to say is be one with the ball in a manner of speaking until no one can tell where the technique & tools end and you begin - samadhi i.e. indivisible union of a person with, sensu amplo, his trade.

Are you really that naive? That is like saying violence is not permitted in Christianity and ‘turn the other cheek’ is always employed.

Myanmar. Plenty of instances of violence there openly encouraged by buddhist monks.

Go back several decades and in the UK muslims would pretty much never get involved in violence. The doctrines don’t matter too much when corrupt leaders of institutions wish to flex for political gain. Religious institutions are political institutions. — I like sushi

Good points! All I can say is this: Buddhism, unlike other religions, doesn't have a loophole that could justify initiation of violence. It does sanction self-defense (black's move in chess).

So, what you're sayin' is that it's true that there is a reason to believe that the belief that there are reasons to believe is false.

Isn't that self-contradictory? You're providing a reason that there are no reasons. Isn't that like saying here's a dog and therefore there are no dogs?

How do game developers create game worlds?

1. First the language

In the beginning was the word (logos)

The universe was written in the language of mathematic. — Galileo Galilei

2. Instructions/algorithms, simultaneous/sequential, creating the stuff and the laws they follow (faithfully).

The OP raises a good point: how do we reconcile anicca (impermanence, constant change) with karma? The former explains itself in that if there are souls, they're in constant flux such that each stage is different from the others. The latter, however, necessitates an unchanging/constant being/soul that should face the music (of his/her own past deeds).

For karma, there's got to be an eternal soul. Anicca, if real, precludes such an entity. Inconsistency detected!

However, if we remind ourselves that Buddhism isn't about knowledge, but about ignorance, the inconsistency becomes a feature and not a bug.

Merely a matter of geography. Buddhist doctrines can just as easily be used to kill and maim. Extremists can exist in any institution.

The general message in every religion is one of peace and love. Some seem to need more reforming than others … not denying that. A bullet to the head is still a bullet to the head. The gun it comes from generally doesn’t matter too much. — I like sushi

Buddhism doesn't have the concept of crusades/jihads (holy wars). Violence is only permitted, but not advocated in Buddhism. A last resort of sorts, for cornered cats.

Last Thursdayism? Have you read about it?

You're on the mark that the past is a question mark i.e. we can't be certain as to whether it's real or just our minds playing tricks on us - memory ain't perfect (Mandela effect, confabulation, false memories, etc.)

Memory-past skepticism, what does it entail? You say we're led towards metaphysics. In what sense? How?

@Bartricks

True that if it can be shown the belief that there are reasons to believe x is independent of actual reasons to believe x then the belief is debunked for the simple reason that x's existence/reality is immaterial to the belief itself.

There are such beliefs e.g. theism (the existence of an actual god is unnecessary because belief in god has another reason that has nothing to do with a real god).

Take note of the underlined words above.

You say peaceful, I say apathetic, complacent, and fatalistic. Not all, but much of Buddhist tradition, like Christian tradition is concerned with maintaining power relations in society. One says you deserve your misery in this life because of your past life and the other that your misery in this life will be rewarded in the next. — unenlightened

That's a misconception of Buddhism. Being of skeptical nature, it never claims to know stuff (with certainty); it simply brings to our attention possibilities and then we're left on our own how best to deal with what could be rather than what is.

Kinda like Pascal's wager, we must err on the side of caution: Karma maybe real or not, but it's better to assume it is. You know, just in case. The same line of reasoning applies to everything else.

It appears that, in congruence with the Oracle of Delphi who is alleged to have warned "surety brings ruin", Buddhism endorses doubt/skepticism as a better; don't we, after all, recommend "a healthy dose of skepticism" to all?

Coming to the suffering of children; it's simple and rational to infer that pediatric illnesses must be caused by something not in this life (Bartricks, in another thread, argues that children are innocent and ergo, antinatalism) and hence in the process of sense-making a hypothesis emerges - karmic debt from past lives.

This - our misfortunes are our own doing - doesn't imply that those who're in a tight spot should be left to the mercy of bad karma. They need to be given all the help they deserve need!

No, we wouldn't. But I doubt we're simulations. Why would the creators create simulations that create simulations? What would be the point? — Harry Hindu

I see. I'm sorry if you feel that way about the rights of simulated beings knowing full well that we ourselves could be them.

There are n number of reasons why someone capable of creating a simulation would do so - from play to research, and everything in betweeen.

Well, if only! The buddhist view is basically that children with bone cancer have bone cancer due to what they did in a previous life. Them having cancer is ‘karma’.

There is a much darker side to buddhist beliefs many prefer to ignore. — I like sushi

Buddhism, to my reckoning, is agnostic as to the existence of souls, souls that are a prerequisite for the claim that children suffer because of the bad karma they accumulated in past lives.

The point to Buddhism is not to claim knowledge for that's impossible given the givens, but to play around with doubt. The results are better: Buddhists are generally more peaceful than Christians, Moslems, etc.

Creationism? How did that get mentioned? — Paulm12

Religion in the classroom = Creationism.

There seems to be some controversy regarding Buddhist beliefs.

The idea is rather simple: Deny both eternalism and nihilism and what you end up with is pure uncertainty/doubt - is there a soul? Is there not? What's the most rational course of action? That there's hell or there's no such thing? Pascal's wager!

Karma is simply an extension of known laws of ethics: what goes around comes around, one good turn deserves another, a taste of one's own medicine, you reap what you sow, you get the idea, tit for tat, quid pro quo, a law encapulated in the word "reciprocity".

Think of karma as an assumption in a conditional proof/reductio ad absurdum proof - it, in the end, needs to be discharged and for this we havta have souls.

I'm saying it's not allowed in the rules of classical logic. — Banno

:up: Some of us are running an old logic module; others seem to have been habituated to double-think, and still others are at ease contradicting themselves, not because they're inured to it, but for the simple reason that it makes complete sense to them.

Classical logic is 2.5k years old - time for an upgrade, oui? Paraconsistent logic comes to mind, but that's just tinkering around with the rules of logic and it, for some reason, hasn't caught on among philosophers. I wonder why?

recollection — Constance

The past-memory infinite loop conundrum

Q1. How do you know the moon landing happened in the past?

A1. Because we have a memory of it!

Q2. How do we know it's a memory and not our imagination?

A2. Because it happened in the past!

Goto Q1, happy riding the merry-go-round! Tell me when you've had enough, ok!

In my haste to critique your argument, I must've missed it. As I said earlier, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Carry on.

Do metaphysical claims entail observables? The problem of evil, god - metaphysics - denied because his omnibenvevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence is contradicted by observation (rampant evil).

Are metaphysical claims amenable only to a priori proofs?

What theory of truth are we using for metaphysical claims? If the correspondence theory of truth then, they can be and should be verified/falsified.

'if'. — Bartricks

That's the word I was looking for! I'm sold on your idea!

Apophatic vicious circle (loop):

What is inside?

Not outside!

What is outside?

Not inside!

1 is Not 0 and 0 is Not 1 where the only possibilities are 1 and 0.

1 = ~0 and 0 = ~1. Aye!

---

Not that 1 isn't 0 and 0 isn't 1.

~1 = 0 and ~0 = 1. Nay!

:snicker:

I don't wanna know what it isn't. I wanna know what it is! — Capt. James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise

Math to the rescue! How exactly? :snicker:

Do you agree that if the correct explanation of a belief does not mention the actual existence of the belief's object, then that belief is discredited? — Bartricks

Do bear with me, I'm slow. This $\uparrow$ is the right place to start. I concur with it (somewhat).

True, if the explanation for a belief x doesn't require the reality/existence of x then, that belief is debunked x is unnecessary.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need of that hypothesis). — Pierre-Simon Laplace

Indeed, you're on the mark. Pardon my obtuseness.

One example (theism) of a debunking belief is sufficient to prove the claim that the belief there are reasons to believe is a debunking belief.

However, I think you shoot yourself in the foot in that your example of a debunking belief is theism and, further down the line, you go on to say atheists are wrong about there being no God.

Don't get me wrong - I like the argument you're proposing, I'm a skeptic you see and nothing gets me stoked as much as an attack on reason, the be all and end all of epistemology.

To reiterate your point, there are no reasons to believe there are reasons to believe. Call this claim B. The reason you offer for this is an example of a belief, that of in god, evolutionarily useful (survival), but not entailing the reality/existence of god. Call this reason R.

Your argument:

1. R $\to$ B
2. R
Ergo,
3. B (1, 2 MP)

My issue is that an example supports but doesn't prove until and unless you want to reduce the scope of your argument to some beliefs are of the debunking kind rather than the vindicatory kind.

The task now is to prove that B is a debunking belief; R is inadequate for that purpose.

@Paulm

The problem with Creationism is that it tries to justify itself scientifically. That's like trying to say antifeminism is feminism.

First off all, you provided us with an instance of a debunking kind, which oddly is (belief in) god, the very thing you say in your conclusion is necessary. Isn't that self-refuting?

Coming to the fallacy of argument by example you commited, it's like this: If I say some Americans are presidents, I could prove it with n number of examples e.g. Washington, Roosevelt, etc. However, this doesn't imply that some Americans are not presidents.

Likewise, yes, there are beliefs of the debunking kind (god :chin: ) but that doesn't mean the belief that there are reasons to believe is also one. You need a different argument for this.

The other problem with your argument is that if there are no reasons to believe anything, why on earth are you trying to offer reasons to believe you?

What I said about the distinction between natural and unnatural (artificial) has nothing to do with the distinction between reality and simulation. — Harry Hindu

That's an odd statement to make.

So you think that simulated people deserve the same rights as real people? — Harry Hindu

We could be simulations, in fact that's what follows if you think my argument based on the novacula Occami is flawed and you do. Do we deserve the same rights as our creator(s)?

You have a point monsieur - the simulation is part of the real world; you said the same thing about the notion of unnatural many suns ago if you recall.

The difference between unnatural and simulation is that yhe latter is a world and so deserves, how shall I put it?, equal respect as the real deal.

"Why are all the gods such vicious cunts?"
~Tyrion Lannister — 180 Proof

As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport. — Gloucester (King Lear)

Pinocchio the puppet did become a real boy, eventually.

We killed them (Klingon gods). They were more trouble than they were worth. — Lt. Worf (Star Trek)

Trump was (going to be) the best thing that happened to Vladimir Putin! :snicker: Putin had Trump wrapped around his finger. Birds Dictators of a feather flock together!

Siamese twin conundrum:

You can't let one in/throw one out without letting the other one in/throwing the other one out too.

The asymmetry that needs to be exposed:

Roe vs. Wade permitted abortion, but it didn't make it mandatory i.e. pro-life women could bear children and not avail of abortion services.

Now, post the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, abortion is prohibited by law i.e. pro-choice women are forbidden from terminating their pregnancies.

In the former case, pro-choice women weren't under any obligation to end their pregnancies, but in the latter case, pro-life women are legally required to carry their pregnancies to full term.

The state doesn't interfere with religion, but the converse is false.

supreme chamber of wizard clowns — Streetlight

:rofl:

Temere bonum (random acts of kindness).

Zinloos geweld (senseless violence).

Good acts are deserved & undeserved and so are foul deeds. The apotheosis of goodness is when it isn't due (trading favors isn't a bad thing, but quid pro quo isn't exactly the best model of benevolence).

So, even if babies weren't innocent, their happiness/well-being is paramount. A fortiori, Bartricks is bang on target.

~K(p & ~Kp) $\to$ □~K(p & ~Kp) $\to$ ~◇K(p & ~Kp) $\to$ ~$\exists$p(p & ~Kp) $\to$ $\forall$p(p $\to$ Kp)

Knowability principle (modal logic variant): p $\to$ ◇Kp

Non-O: $\exists$p(p & ~Kp)

Instantiation of Non-O: p & ~Kp

Input p & ~Kp in the Knowability principle and we get: (p & ~Kp) $\to$ ◇K(p & ~Kp)

Compare the two bolded + underlined statements (vide infra).
~◇K(p & ~Kp) contradicts ◇K(p & ~Kp)

In other words, Fitch's argument is rather interesting in that the reductio ad absurdum argument is itself a reductio ad absurdum argument. A Zen moment for me!

Religion in Politics

Plus: Ethics will get the attention it deserves.

Minus: Most religious ethics are grotesque.

Yours is an argument by example which, if memory serves, is a fallacy.

Nevertheless, your thesis is an intriguing one to say the least.

It, however, is self-refuting if you notice, as it undermines all reason and hence, even your own and out the window goes your theistic conclusion.

This, to your credit, is a new take on an idea as old as the mountains viz. skepticism.

Did you read the thread Banno started about 6 moons ago on logical nihilism. There's a recorded lecture in which the speaker, a lady, says of skepticism of the Agrippa kind that there's something seriously flawed about a system of reasoning that self-destructs in the sense we can formulate an argument within it that exposes the system's Achilles' heel so to speak.

So, you're saying an evolutionary explanation for rationality is of the debunking kind i.e. that we're rational doesn't mean there are reasons (for believing/disbelieving things).

I like where you're going with this, but what's your argument? You don't offer one.

The puzzle arises becasue we can give an evolutionary account of the development of our faculty of reason without having to posit any actual reasons. — Bartricks

What are your thoughts on my view that though, at times, it might be to our advantage to believe falsehoods (e.g. belief in god), evolutionary success (passing down one's genes) is best achieved by being in touch with reality (truths), which is precisely what reason evolved for?

I believe you mentioned this in your OP, since there are infinite natural numbers {1, 2, 3,...}, numbers can grant us that uniqueness some may wish for. We could, for example, order ourselves according to births/deaths/etc. The 1^st human to be born/who died could be someone, you may be the 117,001,987,652^nd to do so and so on (that's your ID/social security number).